J^  ,  /O  ,/tL 


^  PRINCETON,  N.  J.  ^^ 

Presented   by~V^r-o-\.  ZT.'X)  7^CA\S\^  ,  ^ID  ."T) 


Division 


Sectii 


REASONABLE  BIBLICAL 
CRITICISM 


<s^^ 


X  U! 


APR  101912 


Reasonable 
Biblical  Criticism 


i^ 


mm  ^ 


Willis  J.  Beecher,  D.D. 

Professor  of  Hebrew  Language  and  Literature,  Au- 
burn Seminary,  1871-1908;  Author  of  "  Father  Tomp- 
kins and  His  Bibles,"  "The  Prophets  and  the  Prom- 
ise," ••  The  Teaching  of  Jesus  Concerning  the  Future 
Life,"  "Dated    Events  of  the  Old  Testament,"  etc. 


Philadelphia 
The  Sunday  School  Times  Company 


Copyright,  1911, 

BY 

The  Sunday  School  Times  Company 


PREFACF 

Plenty  of  books  and  articles  have  been  published  In 
defense  of  the  orthodox  ideas  concerning  the  Bible,  mean- 
ing by  defense  the  confuting  of  the  arguments  that 
are  urged  against  them.  Some  of  these  defenses  are 
impregnable,  and  do  not  need  to  be  supplemented. 
There  is  another  need,  however,  that  has  not  been  so 
adequately  met,  the  need  described  in  the  fourth  chap- 
ter of  this  book,  the  need  of  so  setting  forth  the  orthodox 
ideas  that  they  shall  appeal  to  the  thinking  of  the  present 
generation,  and  shall  make  the  study  of  the  Bible  a  live 
study.  The  present  little  volume  is  an  attempt  to  meet 
this  need. 

The  matters  treated  are  too  extensive  to  be  dealt  with 
completely,  save  in  a  work  of  many  volumes.  The 
attempt  now  made  is  to  give  a  concise  treatment  that  shall 
be  at  once  comprehensive  and  concrete ;  instead  of  pre- 
senting a  logically  complete  outline,  it  presents  a  succes- 
sion of  topics  that  are  typical  in  their  character.  The 
first  six  chapters  establish  a  point  of  view,  and  call  atten- 
tion to  recognized  principles ;  the  remaining  chapters  dis- 
cuss selected  instances  illustrative  of  these  facts  and 
principles.    The  instances  have  purposely  been  taken  from 


vi  Preface 

different  regions  in  the  field  of  Bible  study.  It  is  hoped 
that  by  this  plan  it  may  be  possible  to  make  an  interesting 
use  of  details. 

Chapters  VIII,  IX,  XII,  XIII,  XVII,  XVIII  have 
been  rewritten  from  articles  published  in  The  Sunday 
School  Times  or  other  periodicals. 


PART  I 

POINT  OF  VIEW  AND  PRINCIPLES  OF 
REASONABLE  CRITICISM 

CHAPTER  I 

AGNOSTIC  AND  CRYPTOAGNOSTIC   CRITICISM 

Agnosticism  defined.  Cryptoagnosticism  defined.  These 
terms  not  intended  opprobriously.  Agnosticism  and 
cryptoagnosticism  as  related  to  the  so-called  Modern 
View.  The  criterion.  No  individuals  here  classified  as 
agnostic  or  cryptoagnostic.  The  matter,  however,  con- 
crete and  real.  Instances  for  illustration :  From  Cornill's 
"Prophets  of  Israel."  From  Baldwin  Lectures  of  1909. 
From  Wellhausen.  From  Encyclopedia  article.  Discus- 
sion of  the  instances.  The  term  "Etiological."  Amateur 
cryptoagnosticism.  Practical  importance  of  the  subject. 
Literature  of  the  subject 3 

CHAPTER  II 

THE  GREAT  PRESENT-DAY  QUESTION  !  ARE  THE  SCRIPTURES 
TRUE? 

Introduction:  In  what  sense  is  this  the  great  question? 
The  dividing  line.  I.  Points  in  definition  of  truthful- 
ness. I.  Ideas  may  be  true,  equally  with  facts.  2.  Hu- 
man elements  in  the  Scriptures.  3.  Points  in  which  there 
is  room  for  difference  of  opinion.  4.  Need  of  drawing 
the  line  correctly,  and  maintaining  it.  II.  Illustrative 
instances,  i.  Naturalistic  explanations  of  incidents.  The 
Red  Sea.  Sodom  and  Gomorrah.  Joseph's  seven  years. 
2.  Naturalistic  elements  connected  with  inspiration.  3. 
Elements  of  fiction  or  figure  of  speech.  4.  Inadvertent 
errors  of  fact.  5.  Responsibility  in  cases  of  quotation. 
6.  Inexcusable  procedures :  Gratuitous  rejection  of 
statements.  Interpretations  that  discredit.  Preferences 
that  discredit.    Biblical  testimony  to  authorship.    Biblical 

vii 


viii  Contents 


account  of  the  history.  Conclusion :  Accepting  the  ordi- 
nary truthfulness  of  the  Scriptures  will  result  in  the 
acceptance  of  their  higher  truthfulness.  Historicity  not 
an    unimportant    detail.      Literature 14 


CHAPTER  III 

INSPIRATION  :      HOW  GOD  GAVE  THE  SCRIPTURES 

Introduction :  The  subject  defined.  Old  doctrine  of  inspira- 
tion. Dictation.  _  Starting  from  an  agnostic  point  of 
view.  I.  Subordinate  questions.  What  is  verbal  in- 
spiration? Inspiration  in  details.  Inspiration  and 
human  freedom.  II.  Two  ways  in  which  the  Supreme 
Power  influences  men :  by  providential  leadings  and  by 
spiritual  impulses.  These  two  methods  used  in  giving  the 
Scriptures.  "Inspiration"  in  the  sense  of  spiritual  im- 
pulse, and  in  wider  sense.  The  Scripture-giving  proc- 
ess. Agnostic  and  theist  alike  must  believe  that  it 
occurred.  The  national  mission  of  Israel.  The  place  of 
miracle  in  the  process.  The  giving  of  the  Scriptures  by 
the  Supreme  Power  differentiated  from  the  giving  of 
other  literatures.  This  view  explains  the  divine  process 
without  discounting  it.     Literature 27 

CHAPTER  IV 

HOW  TO  ACCOUNT  FOR  THE  EXISTING  SITUATION 

Introduction  :  The  rapid  advance  of  the  Modern  View.  Does 
this  prove  it  to  be  valid?  Can  the  movement  be  other- 
wise accounted  for?  Such  a  movement  arises  in  a  situa- 
tion. I.  The  older  views  needed  supplementing.  Inade- 
quate rather  than  incorrect.  This  has  been  neglected  by 
their  defenders.  2.  The  older  statements  of  truth  needed 
to  be  transposed  into  the  forms  of  modern  thinking. 
The  Protestant  creeds  antedated  the  conscious  acceptance 
of  the  inductive  philosophy.  Specialization  and  its  con- 
sequences. Change  in  religious  thinking.  Our  attitude 
toward  the  superhuman.  The  Modern  View  an  unsuc- 
cessful attempt  to  meet  these  needs.  3.  The  older  tradi- 
tion held  by  some  in  a  mechanical  way.  For  example, 
Adam's  rib,  or  the  book  of  Job.  Truthfulness  as  defined 
in  Chapter  II.  The  law  of  deteriorating  tradition.  The 
allegation  that  the  Modern  View  makes  the   Bible   "a 


Contefits  ix 


new  book."  Conclusion :  What  the  old  tradition  now 
needs  is  not  so  much  a  defense  as  a  constructive  expo- 
sition      38 


CHAPTER  V 

VIEWS   THAT   ARE    HELD    CONCERNING   THE   BIBLE 

Introduction  :  Average  views.  Outline  of  treatment.  I.  The 
hexateuch.  i.  The  question  of  the  literary  unit.  2.  The 
question  of  composite  authorship.  3.  Theories  of  com- 
posite authorship.  J,  E,  D,  P,  R.  Criteria.  Estimate. 
4.  The  question  as  to  work  done  by  Ezra  and  his  asso- 
ciates. 5.  The  question  of  post-Mosaic  elements.  Older 
tradition.  Newer  tradition.  Instances,  and  the  results 
from  studying  them.  6.  Questions  of  date  and  author- 
ship. The  older  tradition  as  intelligently  understood. 
The  newer  traditions.  Disproof  of  them.  By  testimony. 
By  literary  phenomena.  By  post-Mosaic  elements.  7. 
The  question  of  historical  truthfulness.  The  older  tradi- 
tion. The  newer  tradition.  Legend  and  fabrication. 
Relative  historicity.  Historical  nucleus.  II.  The  rest  of 
the  Scriptures :  their  testimony,  and  how  they  are 
treated,  i.  The  rest  of  the  Old  Testament.  Judges  and 
Samuel.  Kings  and  other  books.  Hosea  for  exarrple. 
The  testimony,  how  disposed  of.  2.  The  New  Testament. 
Conclusion :  The  importance  of  a  clear  understanding  of 
the  case.    Literature 5 J 

CHAPTER  VI 

ACCEPTED  PRINCIPLES  OF  CRITICISM 

Introduction :  We  ought  to  accept  the  Modern  View  if  it  is 
true.  Uncritical  opinions  sometimes  legitimate.  Being 
critical  sometimes  obligatory,  i.  To  be  truly  critical  one 
must  think  for  himself.  Criticism  versus  authority. 
Cryptoagnosticism  viciously  traditional.  Common  ex- 
perience as  important  as  erudition.  2.  To  be  truly  criti- 
cal one  must  avoid  undue  assumptions.  Prejudgments 
to  be  excluded.  Fundamental  assumptions  by  conserva- 
tive men  and  their  opponents.  Their  differences  of 
procedure.  Some  bad  assumptions.  3.  Criticism  and  the 
original  sources.  The  object  under  observation.  Certain 
wrong  processes.    4.  Criticism  requires  that  we  attend  to 


X  Co7itents 


all  the  evidence.  The  whole  and  the  par<^s  mutually 
interpretative.  Ignoring  parts  of  the  evidence.  In- 
stances, 5.  Mention  of  additional  points.  Favorable  pre- 
sumptions. Prefer  interpretations  that  are  popularly 
intelligible.  Use  all  the  faculties ;  avoid  merely  me- 
chanical study.  Get  the  author's  point  of  view.  Induc- 
tion of  facts  versus  definition.  Sane  processes  of  filling 
in.     Literature 71 


PART  II 

REASONABLE  CRITICISM  AS  AFFECTING 
PARTICULAR  NARRATIVES 

CHAPTER  VII 

THE   FIRST    NARRATIVE    IN    GENESIS 

I.  The  older  ideas  concerning  this  narrative.  Six  clock- 
measured  days.  God  working  by  means.  Patristic  inter- 
pretations. Ideas  of  evolution.  Nebular  hypothesis  and 
geological  days.  Babylonian  and  other  versions.  II. 
The  cryptoagnostic  view  of  this  narrative.  III.  The 
reasonable  view.  A  hypothetical  viewpoint.  A  narrative  by 
itself.  Its  subject.  Creation.  Its  religious  purpose.  Its 
artificial  structure.  Events  and  framework.  The  events. 
Supposing  them  to  be  real,  what  were  they?  The  events 
are  facts,  and  correctly  stated.  The  contrast  with  the 
other  versions  of  the  story.  How  can  the  narrative  be  ac- 
counted   for  ?     Literature 89 

CHAPTER  VIII 

THE    FLOOD    NARRATIVE 

Introductory :  The  P  and  J  sections  in  Genesis.  The  flood 
narrative  as  an  illustration.  Does  the  Bible  say  that 
Noah's  flood  was  universal?  I.  Is  this  narrative  com- 
posite? I.  Analysis  of  sections.  2.  Accounting  for  the 
phenomena  on  the  P  and  J  hypothesis.  No  objection  on 
theological  grounds.  Critical  objections.  The  hypothesis 
not  agreed  upon  by  all  scholars.  In  conflict  with  some  of 
the  phenomena.  Other  supposable  hypotheses.  Ground- 
lessness of  the  alleged  late  dates.     II.  Is  this  narrative 


Co7itents  xi 


self-contradictory?     i.  The  importance  of  the  question. 

2.  Allegations.  Clean  and  unclean.  Worship  by  sacri- 
fice.   Twos  and  sevens.    Forty  days  and  other  time  data. 

3.  Reasons  against  interpreting  discrepantly.  The 
natural  presumption.  The  supposed  redactor  saw  no 
inconsistencies.  III.  Is  this  narrative  untruthful? 
Truthfulness  versus  historicity.  Consistency  proves 
truthfulness.  Babylonian  folklore  as  an  alternative.  IV. 
Is  this  narrative  historical?  Numerical  difficulties.  A 
year-myth?  Widespread  traditions.  Soberness  and 
minute  details.  The  whole  evidence  indicates  historicity. 
Literature 102 


CHAPTER  IX 

THE  NARRATIVE   CONCERNING  ABRAHAM 

Introductory:  Sources  of  the  narrative.  Different  opinions. 
Our  common  inadequate  understanding  of  the  narrative. 
The  magnitude  of  the  patriarchal  events.  Other  points 
that  are  misunderstood.  The  account  of  Abraham  given 
in  Genesis  is  biographically  true,  i.  There  is  no  one 
plausible  opposing  theory.  2.  The  narrative  is  free  from 
grotesque  elements.  3.  It  is  free  from  soberly  incredible 
statements.  The  ages  of  the  patriarchs.  Their  com- 
municating with  Deity.  Personalized  history.  4.  It  is 
free  from  inconsistencies.  5.  Abraham  as  a  character 
is  genuinely  realistic.  6.  The  Hammurabi  environment 
for  Abraham.  The  chronology  cleared  up.  _  Contempo- 
raneous Babylonian  events.  Semitic  migrations.  Order 
of  synchronism.  Abraham  and  the  laws  of  Hammurabi. 
7.  Testimony  of  the  final  authors  of  Genesis,  and  of  the 
witnesses  in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments.     Literature.  116 

CHAPTER  X 

THE  CASE  OF  JACOB 

Introductory:  Critical  theories.  Jacob-el.  Ethical  difficul- 
ties. Humor.  A  sociological  interpretation.  The  story 
of  Jacob.  It  will  take  effort  to  understand  it.  Tradi- 
tional misinterpretation.  Time  data.  The  numbers 
misunderstood.  Their  true  meaning.  The  character  of 
Jacob.  Imagination  and  feeling.  Business  qualities.  His 
view  of  the  birthright.   God's  purpose  for  Jacob.   Jacob's 


xii  Contents 


wrong  attitude.  God  and  Jacob  in  controversy.  The 
pottage  and  the  blessing.  Jacob's  experiences  with 
Laban.  God's  kindness  while  chastising.  Jacob's  sur- 
render of  the  controversy.  His  restitution  to  Esau.  His 
subsequent  relations  to  Esau.  Israel.  The  consecutive- 
ness  of  the  biography,  as  thus  sketched.  To  understand 
the  story  is  to  solve  its  difficulties.  Jacob  a  repentant 
sinner 130 


CHAPTER  XT 

THE    NARRATIVE   CONCERNING   JOSEPH 

Introductory :  The  story  values.  Certain  points.  I.  Per- 
sonalized history.  The  "father"  of  a  people.  He  is  the 
ruler  or  the  founder.  The  secondary  Abrahamic  peoples. 
Ishmaelites,  the  senior  clan.  Midianites  and  Medanites 
and  others,  the  junior  clans.  The  relations  between  them 
about  ninety  years  after  Abraham's  death.  II.  Critical 
treatments  of  the  Joseph  stor}^  The  partition.  "Seams" 
and  their  phenomena.  Inconclusive  reasonings.  Patch- 
work versus  literature.  The  real  objection  to  some 
critical  positions;  their  charge  that  the  story  is  self-con- 
tradictory and  untrue.  Conclusion :  No  reason  for 
crumbling  the  Joseph  story  into  inconsistent  details i43 


CHAPTER  XII 

"'shepherds  in  the  wilderness"" 

Introductory:  The  baby-story  interpretation.  Its  prevalence. 
Especially  where  the  movements  of  men  in  masses  are 
concerned.  I.  The  phrase  "shepherds  in  the  wilderness" 
(Num.  14  :  33).  The  word  in  the  Hebrew,  the  Greek, 
the  Latin.  The  old  traditional  understanding  of  it.  II. 
The  fact  described  in  the  phrase.  As  understood  by 
many.  As  correctly  understood.  The  population  as  a 
whole.  The  camp  and  the  tent  of  meeting.  The  filling 
in  of  the  narrative.  The  manna  and  the  quails.  The 
marches.  The  disciplinary  purpose.  Conclusion:  The 
phrase  is  the  key  to  this  part  of  the  history.  Its  bearing 
on  historicity I53 


Co7itents  xiii 

CHAPTER  XIII 

THE    NARRATIVE    CONCERNING    SAMSON 

Introductory.  Our  superficial  ideas  concerning  Samson.  Is 
Samson  a  sun-myth?  The  narrative.  One  of  six  de- 
tached stories.  Speaks  of  Samson  as  judge  of  Israel. 
Samson:  His  physical  strength,  and  his  humor.  His 
ability  as  a  leader.  Before  the  battle  of  Lehi.  That 
battle  and  its  consequences.  His  morals.  His  religion. 
The  Spirit  of  Jehovah.  Samson's  long  hair.  His  weak- 
nesses. Delilah.  The  great  moral :  Take  warning  from 
the  man  who  would  keep  fooling  with  temptation 163 


PART  III 

REASONABLE  CRITICISM  AND  ARCH^O- 
LOGICAL  DISCOVERIES 


CHAPTER  XIV 


CRITICISM   AND   CHRONOLOGY 

Introduction:  Confusion  concerning  Bible  chronology. 
Repudiation  of  Bible  numbers.  I.  The  Bible  way  of 
counting  units  of  time.  The  Bible  year.  Other  suppos- 
able  years.  Calendar  units  versus  mere  units  of  measure- 
ment. Korean  counting.  The  differences  important  in 
some  cases.  Accession  year  versus  first  year.  These 
points  as  affecting  the  Bible  numbers.  II.  The  successive 
chronological  methods  in  the  Bible,  i.  For  the  time 
before  Abraham.  2,  For  the  time  from  Abraham  to  the 
exodus.  3.  The  forty-year  periods  of  and  after  the 
exodus.  4.  The  time-record  in  terms  of  the  reigns  of 
the  judges  and  early  kings.  5.  For  the  times  after  the 
death  of  Solomon.  III.  Views  that  are  prominently 
held.  "The  Dated  Events  of  the  Old  Testament."  The 
Ussher  chronology.  Its  carefulness.  Its  defects.  The 
Assyrian  chronology.     Its  materials.     Its  high  character. 


xiv  Contents 


The  conflict  between  it  and  the  Bible.  Hints  in  regard  to 
the  comparing  of  dates.  The  Egyptian  chronology. 
Literature 175 


CHAPTER  XV 

A  LINE  OF  SYNCHRONOUS  HISTORY 

Introductory.  I.  A  standard  for  comparison.  List  of  dated 
Assyrian  events.  IL  Bible  events  as  tested  by  this 
standard.  i.  Cryptoagnostic  view  of  the  matter.  2. 
General  comparison.  The  events  are  historical,  not  fabri- 
cated. The  Assyrian  record  affords  background  and  key  to 
the  biblical.  3.  Particular  incidents.  Before  the  Sen- 
nacherib affair.  Tiglath-pilezer.  Pekah.  Hoshea.  Shal- 
manezer.  Capture  of  Samaria.  Ahaz.  The  Sennacherib 
affair.  Analysis  of  the  Bible  narrative.  Common  mis- 
apprehensions. The  dates  of  particular  incidents.  "That 
night."  The  particulars.  Hezekiah  and  the  Philistines. 
Sargon's  Ashdod  expedition.  The  fourteenth  year  of 
Hezekiah.  Hezekiah  and  Merodach-baladan.  The  great 
invasion  by  Sennacherib.  The  subsequent  events  from 
a  contemporary  point  of  view.     Literature 191 


CHAPTER  XVI 

A    FEW    ADDITIONAL    SYNCHRONISMS 

Introduction:  The  principles  under  which  independent 
records  are  mutually  confirmatory.  I.  Shalmanezer  II  and 
the  dynasty  of  Omri.  The  records  of  the  Bible  and  those 
of  Shalmanezer.  The  data  that  fix  the  synchronism. 
Coincidences  in  details.  Coincidences  in  the  outline  of 
the  history.  Shalmanezer's  earliest  years.  His  fourth 
year.  His  sixth  year.  His  subsequent  years.  II.  The 
Moabite  stone.  What  does  Mesha  mean  by  the  "son"  of 
Omri  ?  Questions  concerning  numerals.  Mesha's  defeats 
by  Israel  some  years  earlier  than  the  victories  he  claims 
over  Israel.  The  Moabite  stone  compared  with  2  Kings 
10  :  32  and  13  :  20.  III.  The  "Burden"  in  Isaiah  14  : 
28-32.  'A  nation's  messengers"  and  the  reply  to  them. 
Illusive  expectations.  Differing  interests  of  Philistia 
and  of  Zion.  How  these  points  fit  the  date,  the  fourth 
year  of  Shalmanezer  IV.    Summary.    Literature 208 


Contents  xv 


CHAPTER  XVII 

THE  LEGISLATION  OF  HAMMURABI  AND  THAT  OF  THE 
PENTATEUCH 

Introduction.  I.  General  view.  Questions  that  are  raised. 
Ancient  codes  are  formulations  of  usages.  Institutions 
brought  in  by  Abraham.  Cryptoagnostic  explanations. 
Sinai  and  the  Abrahamic  usages.  II.  Comparing  the  two 
bodies  of  legislation.  Description  of  the  Hammurabi 
laws.  Non-significant  resemblances.  Significant  resem- 
blances in  particulars.  Laws  concerning  slaves.  Con- 
cerning the  sexes.  Concerning  personal  violence.  Con- 
cerning property.  Resemblances  and  differences  in 
characteristic  features,  i.  In  their  character  as  literary 
products.  Classifications,  etc.  2.  In  the  subjects  legis- 
lated upon.  Alike  in  dealing  with  general  matters  of 
human  conduct.  Pastoral  matters  more  prominent  in  the 
pentateuch;  urban  and  commercial  matters  in  Hammu- 
rabi. Inferences  from  the  comparison.  3.  In  the  matter 
of  religious  sanction.  Claims  to  divine  origin.  Impreca- 
tions versus  threats.  4.  As  to  the  ethics  of  legislation. 
Equality  and  fraternity.  Class  legislation.  Humane 
legislation.  Penalties.  Safeguarding  public  justice.  The 
ten  commandments  and  the  law  of  love.     Literature....  222 


CHAPTER  XVIII 

ARAMAIC  PAPYRI   FROM   EGYPT 

Introductory:  The  papyri  from  Syene  and  Elephantine. 
Contents  of  the  Elephantine  papyri.  The  Jewish  worship 
there.  Points  of  contact  with  the  Bible.  I.  Argument 
from  the  papyri  in  support  of  the  cryptoagnostic  criti- 
cism. Discrediting  Jeremiah.  Discrediting  tlie  Deu- 
teronomic  laws.  II.  Argument  from  the  papyri  against 
such  criticism,  i.  View  of  the  older  tradition.  Concern- 
ing Ezra  and  the  men  of  the  Great  Synagogue.  The  tra- 
ditions respectable  in  spite  of  mechanical  interpretations. 
Witness  of  the  books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah.  Josephus 
agreeing  with  Nehemiah.  The  Old  Testament  aggregate 
about  B.  C.  400.  Josephus  concerning  Bagoses.  Josephus 
in  conflict  with  Nehemiah.  2.  The  opposing  critical  view. 
The  issue  square  and  comprehensive.    3.  How  the  papyri 


xvi  Contents 


come  into  the  case.  Dates  of  Johanan  and  Jaddua  and 
Bagoses.  The  Aramaic  of  the  papyri  and  that  of  Ezra 
and  Daniel.  Conclusion.  Net  results  that  affect  the 
whole  range  of  Bible  criticism.     Literature 244 


PART  IV 

REASONABLE  CRITICISM  AND  CERTAIN 
BOOKS  OF  THE  BIBLE 

CHAPTER  XIX 

THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY 

Introduction.  L  The  book  itself.  Divisions  and  structure. 
Mosaic  authorship  as  claimed  in  the  several  parts.  The 
great  Deuteronomic  law.  Opposing  views.  A  supposable 
fictional  hypothesis.  Current  defective  arguments.  The 
denial  of  the  central  fact._  II.  Deuteronomy  and  the 
whole  history  of  the  religion  of  Jehovah.  The  other 
books  presuppose  Deuteronomy.  For  example,  Joshua. 
Judges  and  Samuel.  Kings  and  Chronicles.  The  histories 
emphasize  the  great  Deuteronomic  law.  Attempts  in  con- 
tradiction of  this.  Value  of  the  testimony.  Its  bearings. 
Conclusion:     The  two  alternatives.     Literature 263 

CHAPTER  XX 

THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

Introductory:  Our  ideas  concerning  the  book.  The  object 
under  observation.  Daniel  as  the  subject.  The  stories 
and  their  contents.  The  visions  and  their  contents.  The 
real  values  of  the  book  of  Daniel.  I.  Questions  of  date 
and  authorship.  Possible  theories  under  the  laws  of  per- 
mutation. Is  Daniel  the  author?  The  conditions  in  the 
time  of  Nehemiah.  The  alleged  Maccabean  date. 
Driver's  arguments  from  historical  facts.  From  lan- 
guage :  Persian,  Greek,  Aramaic,  Hebrew.  From  the 
theology  of  the  book.  From  independent  considerations : 
Antiochus  Epiphanes;  the  world-view  in  Daniel.  Mac- 
cabean use  of  the  book.  A  hypothesis.  II.  Questions 
of  historicity  and  truthfulness.    Do  not  confuse  the  two. 


Contents  xvii 


Two  ways  of  thinking  consistent  with  maintaining  the 
truthfulness  of  the  book.  Other  ways  of  thinking  that 
are  not  consistent  with  this.    Conclusions 277 


CHAPTER  XXI 

THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER 

Introductory  outline:  Vashti  succeeded  by  Esther,  Haman's 
plot,  Esther's  cowardice  and  her  daring,  the  gallows 
and  the  pageant  of  honor,  the  victory  of  the  right.  The 
feast  of  Purim.  Ethics  of  the  book  of  Esther :  revenge, 
ambitious  marriages.  The  religious  character  of  the 
book,  its  omissions,  its  recognition  of  God  as  the  unseen 
Reality.  The  great  truths  of  the  book,  and  some  of  its 
minor  lessons.  Early  misapprehensions  concerning  it, 
including  the  Greek  variations  and  additions.  Literary 
characteristics :  humor,  marks  of  composition,  Persian 
marks,  ornate  style.  Date,  within  the  Persian  period. 
Discussions  concerning  canonicity.  Truthfulness.  His- 
toricity :  traditional  opinion,  verisimilitude,  a  true 
presentation  of  the  times.  Were  the  events  actual?  Is 
the  story  a  parable?  Compromise  notions.  Bad  theories 
and  worse  details.    The  true  theory 292 

CHAPTER  XXII 

THE  BOOKS  OF  EZRA,  NEHEMIAH,  AND  CHRONICLES 

These  books  a  single  work,  or  series.  Closing  books  of  the 
Old  Testament.  Twenty- four  books  or  thirty-nine? 
Different  order  in  the  translations.  Contents  of  Ezra- 
Nehemiah-Chronicles :  narrative  of  Zerubbabel,  of 
Ezra,  of  Nehemiah,  of  the  whole  past  history.  Sources 
and  authorship :  Ezra  in  the  first  or  the  third  person. 
Nehemiah  in  the  first  or  the  third  person.  Biblical 
sources  for  Chronicles.  Extra-biblical  sources.  The  pur- 
pose of  the  books.  Nehemiah's  library.  Historicity. 
That  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah.  That  of  Chronicles :  inad- 
vertences, genealogical  matters,  detachable  stories,  the 
narrative  as  a  whole.  The  final  processes  in  making  the 
Old  Testament  aggregate.  Ezra  and  the  scribes.  No 
information  as  to  canon-making.  The  different  kinds  of 
work  done.  Earlier  aggregations.  Processes  of  growth. 
After  400  B.  C.     The  New  Testament 310 


PART  I 


THE  POINT  OF  VIEW  AND  THE  PRINCIPLES 
OF  REASONABLE  CRITICISM 


CHAPTER   I 

AGNOSTIC    AND    CRYPTO  AGNOSTIC    CRITICISM 

Agnosticism  defined,  Cryptoagnosticism  defined.  These  terms 
not  intended  opprobriously.  Agnosticism  and  cryptoagnos- 
ticism as  related  to  the  so-called  Modern  View.  The  cri- 
terion. No  individuals  here  classified  as  agnostic  or  crypto- 
agnostic.  The  matter,  however,  concrete  and  real.  Instances 
for  illustration :  From  Cornill's  "Prophets  of  Israel."  From 
Baldwin  Lectures  of  1909.  From  Wellhausen.  From  Ency- 
clopedia article.  Discussion  of  the  instances.  The  term 
"Etiological."  Amateur  cryptoagnosticism.  Practical  im- 
portance of  the  subject.     Literature  of  the  subject. 

From  the  point  of  view  of  the  men  who  take  pride 
in  being  agnostics,  an  agnostic  is  a  person  who  is  con- 
scious that  he  does  not  know  the  things  which  he  has 
no  means  of  knowing.  An  agnosticism  that  really  con- 
formed to  this  definition  would  be  commendable.  Great 
mischief  is  done  by  persons  who  think  they  know,  or 
pretend  they  know,  in  cases  when  the  evidence  does 
not  justify  knowledge.  Sincerity  is  a  virtue,  and  being 
conscious  of  ignorance  is  sometimes  a  virtue. 

The  term  is  commonly  used,  however,  with  a  specif- 
ically  religious   application.     An  atheist 
Agnosticism      affirms  that  there  is  no  God;  an  agnos- 
tic affirms  that  we  do  not  know  whether 
God  exists.     The  Century  Dictionary  defines  an  agnos- 
tic as   "one  of  a  class  of  thinkers   who   disclaims   any 
knowledge  of  God  or  of  the  ultimate  nature  of  things"; 
one  who  holds  that  concerning  these  "we  have  no  right 

3 


4  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

to  assert  anything  whatever."  The  opinions  of  agnos- 
tics range  all  the  way  from  ''a  state  of  suspended  judg- 
ment" to  the  positive  holding  that  God  is  "not  merely 
now  unknown,  but  must  always  remain  unknowable" 
(Romanes,  cited  in  Cent.  Die).  Of  course,  an  agnos- 
tic is  precluded  from  regarding  the  Scriptures  as 
an  especial  revelation  from  Deity.  His  position  on  that 
question  is  necessarily  either  that  of  agnosticism  or  of 
denial. 

There   are   many   who   avowedly   take   a   strictly   ag- 
nostic position  in  regard  to  the  Scriptures.     There  are 
others  who  are  in  a  greater  or  less  de- 

^^  °".  g^ree  as^nostic,   thoug;h  they  try  to  con- 

agnosticism         ^      ,     ^^       rl  ,     .  ^ 

ceal  the  tact,  and  m  some  cases  are 
themselves  doubtless  unconscious  of  it.  In  what  they 
publish  they  are  less  bold,  less  pronounced,  than  the 
more  thoroughgoing  and  consistent  agnostics.  They  try 
to  hold  many  of  the  agnostic  positions  without  parting 
entirely  from  the  traditional  ideas  of  the  sacredness 
of  the  Bible.  They  have  much  in  common  with  the 
conservative  lovers  of  the  Bible.  This,  however,  renders 
their  attacks  the  more  dangerous,  coming  thus  from 
enemies  concealed  within  the  camp.  Using  an  obvious 
and  well-known  process  of  compounding  words,  I  ven- 
ture to  call  such  men  "Cryptoagnostic." 

I  do  not  intend  the  term  as  one  of  opprobrium.  In 
certain  quarters  such  terms  as  Methodist  or  Presbyterian 
are  used  opprobriously,  but  all  the  same  a  true  Methodist 
is  proud  of  the  name,  and  a  true  Presbyterian  is  proud 
of  the  name.  The  large  majority  in  Christendom  be- 
lieve that  we  have  genuine  knowledge  both  concerning 


Agnostic  and  Cryptoag7iostic  Criticism        5 

God  and  concerning  the  Scriptures  as  a  revelation  from 
him,  and  that  the  contrary  opinion  is  erroneous  and  de- 
serving of  disapproval ;  but  that  does  not  change  the 
fact  that  if  a  person  holds  the  said  contrary  opinion, 
and  claims  to  hold  it  honestly  and  conscientiously,  he 
ought  to  be  proud  of  being  called  by  the  name  that  cor- 
rectly designates  his  position.  For  honor  or  dishonor 
the  name  belongs  to  him ;  if  he  flinches  from  it,  that  is 
a  confession  that  he  is  not  quite  satisfied  with  his  position. 
Agnostic  or  cryptoagnostic  criticism  are  not  of  neces- 
sity precisely  the  same  thing  with  what  is  currently  called 
the    newer    criticism    or    the    Modern 

*u  "^  ^j"*"  tv        View  ;    but    unfortunately    the    Modern 
the  Modern  View         ^  -^ 

View  is  saturated  with  agnostic  elements. 
Many  of  the  important  articles  in  the  "Encyclopedia 
Biblica"  are  from  the  point  of  view  of  men  who  would 
not  shrink  from  being  called  agnostic.  In  the  articles  in 
several  other  recent  books  of  reference,  in  such  a  volume 
as  Driver's  ^'Introduction,"  and  in  a  multitude  of  other 
books  and  articles,  there  is  an  element  of  agnosticism  less 
outspoken,  less  sustained,  less  consistent.  This  is  true 
even  of  many  works  which  are  relatively  so  conservative 
that  the  bolder  advocates  of  the  Modern  View  regard 
them  as  mere  compromise.  In  this  little  volume  I  am  not 
attacking  the  Modern  View  as  such,  but  only  the  agnostic 
or  cryptoagnostic  elements  in  it. 

The  criterion  of  agnosticism  or  cryptoagnosticism  in 
connection  with  the  Scriptures  is  the  denial  of  their  truth- 
fulness. If  men  know  anything  concerning  God,  they 
know  that  he  is  true.  That  the  Supreme  Being  falsifies 
is  unthinkable.    If  a  person  consistently  believes  that  God 


6  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

has  given  the  Scriptures  as  an  especial  revelation  of  him- 
self, that  person  must,  irrespective  of  all  theories  of  in- 
spiration, hold  that  the  Scriptures  are  truthful.  It  is  not 
necessary  to  hold  this  in  any  finical  or 

The  Criterion  mechanical  way.  The  ideas  of  truthful- 
ness set  forth  in  the  next  chapter  are 
certainly  reasonable.  Any  criticism  which  unduly  as- 
sumes or  affirms  the  lack  of  truthfulness  in  the  Scrip- 
tures is  thereby  marked  as  either  agnostic  or  crypto- 
agnostic. 

I  do  not  classify  individuals.  I  do  not  say  of  any  per- 
son that  he  is  either  agnostic  or  cryptoagnostic.  On  the 
contrary,  I  have  coined  this  latter  word  in  order  to  relieve 
myself  of  the  responsibility  of  making  a  classification.  It 
is  peculiarly  true  of  living  critical  scholars  that  no  two 
hold  precisely  the  same  views.  A  man  may  be  agnostic 
or  cryptoagnostic  in  some  points,  and  evangelical  in  other 
points.  I  have  to  deal  with  agnosticism  or  cryptoagnos- 
tlcism  in  the  utterances  of  men,  but  I  abstain  from  char- 
acterizing the  men.  If  their  utterances  classify  them,  I 
have  no  responsibility  for  that. 

This  disclaimer  does  not  imply  that  the  matters  under 
discussion  are  merely  academic  or  hypothetical  or  im- 
aginary ;  they  are  as  concrete  as  anything 
e^jues  on     ^^^  ^^^     r^^^  cryptoagnostic  criticism  is 

one  of  the  great  phenomena  in  the  think- 
ing of  the  present  generation.  It  is  being  pushed  by  a 
propaganda  that  is  wonderfully  effective.  It  is  thor- 
oughly real ;  its  opponents  regard  it  as  a  calamitous 
reality. 

Few  volumes  on  the  newer  criticism  have  wider  cir- 


Agnostic  and  Cryptoagnostic  Criticism        7 

culation  than  Professor  Cornill's  "Prophets  of  Israel." 
In  this  book,  page  31,  Dr.  Cornill  thus  states  the  view 
held  by  men  of  his  class:  "The  Israel- 
Instances  itish  narrative,  as  it  lies  before  us  in  the 
books  of  the  Old  Testament,  gives  a 
thoroughly  one-sided,  and  in  many  respects  incorrect, 
picture  of  the  profane  history,  and  on  the  other  hand 
an  absolutely  false  representation  of  the  religious  history 
of  the  people,  and  has  thus  made  the  discovery  of  the 
truth  well-nigh  impossible." 

Note  this  statement  carefully.  Dr.  Cornill  does  not  say 
that  the  Old  Testament  writers  may  here  and  there  have 
inadvertently  made  a  mistake,  or  that  there  may  be  ele- 
ments of  fiction  or  of  figure  of  speech  in  the  Scriptures, 
which  men  have  mistaken  for  literal  fact.  What  he  says 
is  that  the  secular  history  is  exceedingly  untrustworthy, 
while  the  religious  history  is  utterly  false. 

In  the  Brooklyn  Eagle  for  June  7,  1909,  is  a  review 
of  the  Baldwin  lectures  for  the  year,  delivered  at  the 
University  of  Michigan.  It  makes  the  following  quota- 
tions among  others : 

"The  patriarchs  are  legendary  beings.  ...  As  yet, 
we  have  no  evidence  of  Israel's  sojourn  in  Goshen. 
.  .  .  The  popular  idea  of  the  exodus  has  no  founda- 
tion in  fact.  .  .  .  The  Gospels  contain  2,899  verses  ;  of 
these  only  about  one  hundred  furnish  strict  biographical 
details.  .  .  .  Our  information  about  Jesus  .  .  . 
is  scanty  in  the  extreme.  .  .  .  We  do  not  know  what 
Jesus'  descent  was.  .  .  .  We  do  not  know  his  birth- 
place for  certain.  .  .  .  We  do  not  know  his  age  at 
the  time  he  undertook  his  mission.    We  have  no  absolute 


8  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

certainty  that  any  single  saying  in  the  Gospels  was 
uttered  in  that  precise  form  by  Jesus.  .  .  .  We  do  not 
know  when  or  where  he  was  crucified.  .  .  .  We  do 
not  know  exactly  what  claims  he  made  with  respect  to 
his  mission  on  earth." 

The  great  German  critic,  Wellhausen,  is  commonly  re- 
ported to  have  compared  his  own  teachings  with  those 
of  certain  Scottish  scholars,  in  the  following  language : 

*'I  knew  the  Old  Testament  was  a  fraud,  but  I  never 
dreamt,  as  these  Scotch  fellows  do,  of  making  God  a 
party  to  the  fraud." 

One  of  the  writers  of  the  article  on  Jesus  Christ  in 
the  new  Schaff-Herzog  Encyclopedia  says  that  the  Gos- 
pel according  to  John  has  only  "a  slender  modicum  of 
underlying  historic  tradition."  He  says  that  the  account 
in  the  Gospels  of  the  events  that  followed  the  Lord's 
supper  "is  relatively  vague  and  self-contradictory."  Of 
what  actually  happened  he  says: 

"The  four  canonical  Gospels  have  uniformly  canceled 
the  story  of  this  fundamental  event  in  the  history  of  the 
Christian  religion  in  favor  of  more  concrete,  more  tan- 
gible and  marvelous  tales  of  the  empty  tomb  and  reap- 
pearance of  Jesus  in  palpable  form." 

Do  not  mistake  the  meaning  of  this  assertion.  It  is 
that  the  four  Evangelists  have  "uniformly"  suppressed 
all  account  of  what  actually  took  place,  substituting  for 
it  the  "marvelous  tales,"  now  found  In  the  Gospels,  con- 
cerning the  burial  and  resurrection  of  Jesus. 

I  have  purposely  taken  one  of  these  four  instances 
from  a  newspaper,  and  one  from  a  source  which  I  have 
not  verified,   so   that   I   present   it   merely   as   common 


Agnostic  and  Cryptoagnostic  Criticism        9 

report.  It  would  be  easy  to  copy  authentic  instances 
by  the  hundred ;  but  it  is  more  important  to  observe  that 
these  ideas  are  pubHc  property — not  the  lucubrations  of 
some  scholar  in  a  closet,  but  strenuously  taught  and  gen- 
erally discussed.  The  person  who  calls  attention  to  them, 
and  sounds  an  alarm,  is  not  thereby  marked  as  a  narrow 
and  panicky  conservative ;  he  is  simply  an  observer  who 
sees  what  is  visible. 

The  utterances  just  quoted  are  not  particularly  ex- 
treme, and  are  far  from  being  exceptional.  Such  utter- 
ances abound.  And  many  who  refrain  from  being  thus 
outspoken  yet  follow  practices  that  are  not  less  deroga- 
tory to  the  truthfulness  of  the  Scriptures.  When  they  are 
treating  subjects  they  reject  scriptural  statements  of  fact, 
one  after  another,  to  an  extent  that  utterly  discredits 
the  Scriptures  as  a  source  of  information.  They  do  this 
not  in  the  case  of  miracles  only,  but  in  the  case  of  ordi- 
nary historical  facts;  not  in  regard  to  the  pentateuch 
only,  but  in  regard  to  the  whole  Bible;  not  for  the  Old 
Testament  only,  but  also  for  the  New.  They  declare 
that  the  actual  early  history  of  the  religion  of  Jehovah 
was  something  very  different  from  that  recorded  in  the 
Old  and  New  Testaments — different  in  its  outline,  dif- 
ferent in  a  large  portion  of  its  details.  Their  rejection 
of  biblical  statements  of  fact  is  not  merely  incidental 
and  exceptional ;  it  is  an  essential  part  of  the  theories 
they  defend,  and  without  it  the  theories  collapse. 

Among  critics  of  this  type  the  term  '"etiological"  has 
come  largely  into  use.  An  etiological  narrative  is  one 
which  has  been  invented  in  order  to  account  for  some 
existing  fact  or  phenomenon.    The  Gospels  and  the  Book 


lo  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

of  Acts,  it  is  said,  are  collections  of  etiological  stories — 
not  authentic  narratives  concerning  the  founders  of 
Christianity,  but  narratives  that  were  invented  for  the 
purpose  of  accounting  for  the  Christian  doctrines  and 

practices  that  had  become  prevalent  in 
Etiolog'y         the  early  centuries.     Similarly,  they  say, 

nearly  all  the  Old  Testament  narra- 
tives are  directly  or  indirectly  etiological — stories  in- 
vented to  explain  the  origin  of  usages  that  were  familiar 
to  the  inventors.  Etiological  narratives,  they  tell  us, 
may  range  all  the  way  from  those  which  approxi- 
mately give  sober  facts  to  those  which  are  absurdly  fanci- 
ful;  but  they  are  not  history,  though  it  may  in  some 
cases  be  possible  to  infer  historical  truth  from  them. 

In  a  civilization  like  ours  the  public  discussions  of  a 
subject  are  not  carried  on  exclusively  by  persons  who  are 

familiar  with  the  subject.  Often  the 
Amateur  Crypto-  ^-^  ^^^  ^^  ^j^^  discussion  is  by  the 
ai>nosticism  ,.  ,  ,    ., 

editors  or  correspondents  or  contribu- 
tors who  begin  their  articles  with  the  formula,  "The  pres- 
ent writer  is  not  an  expert  in  these  matters,  but."  This 
has  been  decidedly  the  case  in  the  discussions  on  biblical 
matters ;  they  have  been  in  the  hands  of  amateurs  on  the 
one  side  or  the  other.  No  one  should  complain  of  this 
fact;  it  is  a  wholesome  thing  that  amateurs  should  be 
interested.  But  the  fact  should  lead  some  persons  to  be 
more  careful  than  they  are  as  to  the  statements  they  ac- 
cept. For  some  years  past  scholars  have  been  relatively 
reticent  on  the  questions  concerning  criticism  that  are 
most  before  the  public;  most  of  the  articles,  and  even 
some  of  the  volumes,  have  been  written  by  the  amateurs. 


Agnostic  and  Cryptoagnostic  Criticis7n       1 1 

For  some  reason  a  person  sees  fit  to  take  a  stand  on  these 
subjects,  though  he  has  not  given  them  careful  attention. 

When  one  does  this  he  has  to  take  sides.  If  he  were 
quahfied  to  decide  the  questions  on  the  evidence  he  might 
stand  by  himself,  but  he  is  not  so  qualified.  All  he  can 
do  is  to  adopt  or  attack  some  existing  view.  Some  of  the 
amateurs  are  on  the  conservative  side ;  those  who  are  on 
the  other  side  are  there  for  various  reasons.  One  has 
taken  offense  at  what  seemed  to  him  the  unreasonable- 
ness of  certain  orthodox  persons  or  organizations,  and 
has  deemed  that  a  sufificient  reason  for  lining  himself  up 
on  the  opposite  side,  without  taking  the  trouble  to  find 
out  what  the  teachings  on  that  side  are.  Another  is  full 
of  the  idea  of  the  superiority  of  the  present  over  the 
past ;  he  professes  allegiance  to  certain  critical  views, 
not  because  he  has  investigated  and  found  them  true,  but 
because  he  has  been  told  that  they  are  up  to  date.  Then, 
again,  there  are  persons  who  really  do  not  seem  to  feel 
that  they  are  grown  up  until  they  have  proved  their 
prowess  by  shying  stones  at  what  they  suppose  to  be  the 
glass  windows  of  orthodoxy.  The  best  prescription  for 
one  of  these  cases  of  amateur  cryptoagnosticism  might  be 
that  the  patient  take  a  course  of  reading  before  he  again 
rushes  into  print,  and  thus  learn  what  the  teachings  he 
advocates  really  are.  Meanwhile,  we  all  need  to  be  very 
careful  in  the  use  we  make  of  the  printed  statements  we 
find. 

Probably  the  most  harmful  vice  of  the  amateur  crypto- 
agnosticism is  its  treating  the  issues  at  stake  as  if  they 
were  not  very  important,  as  if  they  were  mere  cases  of 
hair-splitting.     All  well-informed  persons  know  the  con- 


12  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

trary ;  the  questions  are  vital,  and  the  situation  serious. 

Our  confidence  in  the  Bible  as  a  source  of  information 

determines  our  confidence  in  most  of  the  teachings  which 

we    are    accustomed    to    regard    as    the 

The  Issues  not  ^      i.      ^i  r  v    •  •    ~ 

great     truths     of     religion;     concerning 

many  of  these  the  knowledge  we  have 

from  other  sources  than  the  Bible  is  mere  speculation. 

It   is   not  by   accident   that   agnosticism   concerning   the 

Scriptures  is  accompanied  by  agnosticism  concerning  the 

fundamentals  in  morals  and  religion. 

The  recent  decades  have  been  a  time  of  wonderful 
progress  in  many  matters  connected  with  Christian  study 
and  work;  and  yet  it  is  a  disputed  question  whether 
Christianity  is  now  slowly  advancing,  or  is  at  a  stand, 
or  is  actually  retrograding.  How  can  we  account  for  this 
strange  fact?  There  is  just  one  answer  to  this  question: 
the  current  trend  toward  agnosticism  is  so  strong  that  it 
mainly  neutralizes  the  push  of  the  forces  that  make  for 
advance.  Our  struggle  with  agnosticism  is  a  life  or  death 
struggle. 

A  concise  sketch  of  the  critical  thought-movement  of 

the  past  two  and  a  half  centuries  is  'The  Elements  of 

the  Higher  Criticism,"  by  Prof.  A.  C. 

Literature        Zenos.      Good    information,    compactly 

given,  may  be  found  in  "The  Study  of 

Holy  Scripture,"  by  Prof.  C.  A.  Briggs.    The  literature 

of   the   subject,   however,   is   voluminous,   amounting  in 

bulk  to  whole  libraries.    All  the  recent  Bible  Dictionaries 

and      Religious  Encyclopedias  have  articles   on   all  the 

important  critical  topics,  with  references  to  volumes  and 

articles — to  those  on  both  sides  of  the  subjects  that  are 


Agnostic  and  Crypto  agnostic  Criticism      13 

in  controversy.  Some  of  the  matters  presented  in  this 
chapter  are  treated  more  fully  in  ''Recent  Developments 
in  Biblical  Criticism,"  Homiletic  Review,  June,  1900, 
and  in  "The  Old  Tradition  and  the  New,"  Congrega- 
tionalist,  March  7,  1903,  and  Bible  Student  and  Teacher, 
January,  1904. 


CHAPTER  II 

THE  GREAT  PRESENT-DAY   QUESTION  :   ARE  THE  SCRIPTURES 

TRUE? 

Introduction:— In  what  sense  is  this  the  great  question?  The 
dividing  line.  I.  Points  in  definition  of  truthfulness.  i. 
Ideas  may  be  true,  equally  with  facts.  2.  Human  elements 
in  the  Scriptures.  3.  Points  in  which  there  is  room  for  differ- 
ence of  opinion.  4.  Need  of  drawing  the  line  correctly,  and 
maintaining  it.  II.  Illustrative  instances.  i.  Naturalistic 
explanations  of  incidents.  The  Red  Sea.  Sodom  and 
Gomorrah.  Joseph's  seven  years.  2.  Naturalistic  elements 
connected  with  inspiration.  3.  Elements  of  fiction  or  figure 
of  speech.  4.  Inadvertent  errors  of  fact.  5.  Responsibility 
in  cases  of  quotation.  6.  Inexcusable  procedures :  Gratuitous 
rejection  of  statements.  Interpretations  that  discredit.  Pref- 
erences that  discredit.  Biblical  testimony  to  authorship. 
Biblical  account  of  the  history.  Conclusion :  Accepting 
the  ordinary  truthfulness  of  the  Scriptures  will  result  in 
the  acceptance  of  their  higher  truthfulness.  Historicity 
not  an  unimportant  detail.     Literature. 

To-day  the  most  pressing  question  concerning  the  Scrip- 
tures is  whether  they  are  normally  truthful.  I  do  not 
say  that  this  question  is  in  itself  more  important  than  the 
question  whether  they  are  divinely  inspired,  or  the  ques- 
tion in  what  sense  they  are  inspired,  or  whether  inspira- 
tion guarantees  to  them  extraordinary  truthfulness,  or 
more  im.portant  than  questions  concerning  their  spiritual 
power  or  their  appeal  to  human  experience.  One  ques- 
tion may  be  more  important  at  one  time,  and  another 
question  at  another  time;  the  question  now  more  to  the 
front  than  any  other  is  simply  whether,  in  fact,  the  state- 
ments found  in  the  Bible  are  ordinarily  true. 
14 


Are  the  Scriptures  True  f  15 

Here  lies  the  boundary  line  between  existing  schools 

of  criticism.     Critical  opinions  which  regard  the  biblical 

statements  as  ordinarily  trustworthy  lie 
Division  Line       ^^^  ^^^  ^^^^  ^^  ^^^^  j.^^^  ^^^.j^  ^j^^^^  ^^^^-^j^ 

in  Criticism  ,     ,       ,  •,  i-      ,      .   ^  j.  ^.^ 

regard  the  biblical  statements  as  pretty 

generally  untrustworthy  lie  on  the  other  side  of  the  line. 
This  constitutes  the  great  distinction.  Other  distinc- 
tions are  of  minor  importance. 

This  seems  very  simple.  It  is  really  not  so  simple  but 
that  it  needs  definition. 

1.  Ideas  may  be  true,  equally  with  facts.  One  who 
holds  that  the  Scriptures  are  truthful  should  hold  that 
what  they  present  as  fact  is  true  to  fact,  and  what  they 
present  as  parable  or  proverb  or  figure  of  speech  or  fic- 
tion in  any  other  form  is  true  as  a  presentation  of  true 
ideas. 

2.  The  Scriptures,  however  divine,  are  professedly 
given   to  us   through    fallible   human   persons — authors, 

translators,  copymakers  and  others. 
Errors  of  Therefore,  if  there  exist  in  them  such 

Inadvertence  i  ^         j  t.      *. 

minor  errors  as  honest  and  competent 

witnesses  are  liable  to  make,  that  does  not  necessarily 
detract  from  their  truthfulness.  One  who  holds  that 
the  Scriptures  are  truthful  should  be  conscious  of  these 
limitations.  This  will  not  prevent  his  holding  that  the 
original  text  was  remarkably  free  from  mistaken  state- 
ments, or  his  insisting  that  no  part  of  the  existing  text 
is  to  be  discredited  except  for  sufficient  reasons. 

3.  In  the  case  of  many  clauses  and  passages  there  is 
room  for  honest  difference  of  opinion  as  to  whether  they 
are  literal  or  figurative,  fact  or  parable.     Also  there  is 


1 6  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

in  many  instances  room  for  honest  difference  of  opinion 
as  to  whether  errors  have  found  their  way  into  the  text 
which  we  use.    One  who  holds  the  Scriptures  to  be  truth- 
ful should  not  regard  a  person  as  on  the 

J^T^^  side  of  the  enemy  merely  because  the  two 

Differences  •'  "^ 

differ  on  many  points  of  this  kind.     But 

if  any  one  habitually,   and  without  proof,   takes  it   for 

granted  that  statements  made  in  the  Bible  are  untrue, 

that  shows  that  he  belongs  in  the  opposite  camp. 

4.  The  line  thus  drawn  is  important.  We  who  believe 
in  the  truthfulness  of  the  Scriptures  should  welcome  as 
on  the  right  side  many  whose  opinions 
The  Conflict  Real  differ,  and  even  differ  importantly,  from 
ours ;  but  we  should  not  forget  that  there 
is  also  a  wrong  side.  We  need  not  be  bitter  to  those  who 
are  on  the  wrong  side,  but  we  should  take  pains  to  have 
it  understood  that  the  conflict  between  their  views  and 
the  truth  seems  to  us  to  be  irreconcilable. 

Clear  as  these  distinctions  seem,  there  is  actually 
nothing  in  regard  to  which  the  minds  of  people  are  more 
confused.  In  order  to  be  sure  that  we  understand,  let 
us  apply  the  distinctions  in  certain  illustrative  details. 

I.  One  who  accepts  the  Scriptures  as  truthful  is  not 
necessarily  inconsistent  if,  treating  the  Bible  text  fairly, 

he  explains  by  natural  law  some  events 

Naturalistic  .1.1  it,  j    j 

Int  r  retati  n  ^^^   commonly  been   regarded   as 

miraculous;    though   he    is    inconsistent 

if  he  rejects  or  distorts  Bible  passages  in  order  to  get 

rid  of  miracle. 

Seventy  years  ago  Dr.  Edward  Robinson  called  atten- 
tion to  certain  physical  phenomena  connected  with  the  Red 


Are  the  Scriptures  True  ?  17 

Sea,  and  showed  how  remarkably  these  fit  into  the  state- 
ments made  in  Exodus  concerning  the  crossing  of  the  sea 
by  Israel.  In  this  he  was  not  impugning  the  truthfulness 
of  the  Bible  narrative.  If  one  holds  that  the  withdrawal 
of  the  water  can  be  accounted  for  by  natural  causes,  that 
does  not  discredit  a  sentence  of  the  biblical  account;  he 

simply  has  a  different  understanding  of 
Instances        the  account  from  that  of  the  person  who 

thinks  that  the  water  was  withdrawn  by 
miracle.  The  event  still  remains,  as  wonderful  a  di- 
vine interposition  as  any  miracle  could  be.  Similar 
statements  might  be  made  concerning  Sir  J.  W.  Dawson's 
explanation  of  the  destruction  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah 
as  due  to  the  sinking  of  a  large  tract  of  territory  into 
subterranean  deposits  of  bituminous  products;  or  con- 
cerning Dr.  G.  F.  Wright's  explanation  of  Joseph's  seven 
years  of  famine  as  due  to  the  Nile's  becoming  obstructed, 
with  the  flooding  of  tens  of  thousands  of  square  miles 
of  territory  up  the  stream,  and  the  consequent  diminish- 
ing of  the  rise  of  the  river  in  Egypt.  Such  explanations, 
if  made  in  good  faith,  are  not  attacks  on  either  the  truth- 
fulness or  the  superhuman  character  of  the  Scriptures. 
They  have  the  contrary  effect.  There  is  room  for  dif- 
ference of  opinion  as  to  whether  the  men  who  give  the 
explanations  have  made  out  their  case ;  but  if  they  have, 
they  have  set  the  seal  of  modern  science  to  the  truth- 
fulness of  these  parts  of  the  Bible,  proving  conclusively 
that  they  are  not  untrustworthy  legend,  but  are  reports 
of  actual  events,  correct  and  graphic  from  the  point  of 
view  of  the  persons  who  saw  the  events. 

This  view  maintains  the  truthfulness  of  the  Scriptures 


1 8  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

equally  with  the  view  that  the  events  were  miracles.  The 
men  on  the  wrong  side  are  those  who  insist  that  the  nar- 
ratives are  accounts  of  miracles,  and  therefore  are  not 
credible;  or  those  who  carelessly  reject  or  neglect  the 
narratives  as  being  of  the  nature  of  folklore.  There  is 
no  peril  in  seeking  naturalistic  explanations  of  Bible 
events,  provided  one  reverently  and  truly  follows  the 
record.  The  element  of  miracle  will  remain  wherever  the 
record  justifies  it.  This  is  a  very  different  process  from 
that  in  which  one  assumes  that  miracles  never  occur,  and 
then  manipulates  or  discredits  the  record  in  order  to 
validate  that  assumption. 

2.  One  is  not  necessarily  on  the  wrong  side  if  he  goes 
as  far  as  the  evidence  will  permit  in  giving  naturalistic 
explanations  of  the  origin  of  the  Scrip- 
Natural  Factors     ^^        ^^^  ^^^^  ^^  ^^^^  ^.^^^^^  element  that 

m  the  Scriptures         ,        j    •    ^      ^i  rr.,  .      • 

entered  mto  them.  Ihere  are  analogies 
between  the  way  in  which  God  has  given  us  the  Scrip- 
tures and  the  way  in  which  he  gives  other  blessings.  One 
is  on  the  wrong  side,  however,  if  in  the  interest  of  such 
an  explanation  he  rejects  or  distorts  parts  of  the  testi- 
mony, or  if  he  bases  his  contention  on  the  idea  that  God 
is  the  slave  rather  than  the  master  of  natural  law. 

Inspiration  implies  the  influence  of  the  Spirit  of  God 
upon  the  inspired  author.  But,  as  we  shall  see  in  the 
next  chapter,  it  also  implies  that  that  author  is  the  sub- 
ject of  ordinary  providential  leadings;  and  that  provi- 
dential leadings  and  divine  spiritual  influences  have  alike 
entered  into  the  events  with  which  the  inspired  author 
has  to  deal.  The  divine  element  has  come  into  the  Scrip- 
tures in  all  these  ways.     Some  of  the  experiences  con- 


Are  the  Scriptures  True  ?  19 

nected  with  inspired  authorship  are  analogous  to  other 
human  experiences.  It  is  possible  for  one  to  find  the 
Scriptures  very  human  without  thereby  finding  them  any 
the  less  divine.  There  is  room  for  honest  difference  of 
opinion  in  the  framing  of  doctrines  of  inspiration.  The 
man  on  the  wrong  side  is  the  man  who  fails  to  recognize 
inspiration  as  a  fact,  a  fact  differentiating  the  Scriptures 
from  all  other  writings. 

3.  One  is  not  necessarily  on  the  wrong  side  if  he  in- 
terprets as  fiction  or  as  figure  of  speech  some  parts  of  the 

Bible  which  we  have  been  accustomed 

ir-^  •  xu  c-ui  to  interpret  as  fact.  But  he  is  on  the 
Figure  in  the  Bible  ^ 

wrong  side  if  he  bases  such  an  interpre- 
tation on  the  assumption  that  miracles  never  occur;  or 
if  he  fortifies  it  by  alleging  that  the  passages  so  inter- 
preted are  untrue  in  their  details;  or  if  he  confuses  re- 
ligious parable  with  meaningless  folklore ;  or  if  in  any 
way  he  treats  the  passage  as  falsified  fact  rather  than  as 
a    story  constructed  for  teaching  purposes. 

If  we  hold  that  Jesus  taught  by  parables,  we  are  pre- 
cluded from  denying  that  the  prophets  who  wrote  the 
books  of  Jonah  and  Daniel  may  supposably  have  intended 
to  teach  by  parables.  As  to  the  question  how  far  the 
element  of  fiction  has  actually  entered  into  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, there  is  room  for  reasonable  difference  of  opin- 
ion. The  man  on  the  wrong  side  is  the  man  who  says 
that  these  stories  were  intended  to  be  taken  as  fact,  but 
are  untrue. 

4.  One  is  not  necessarily  on  the  wrong  side  if  he  finds 
some  actual  errors  of  fact  in  the  Bible,  even  though  some 
of  these  errors  may  have  a  degree  of  importance.     The 


20  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticisi7i 

principle  applies  to  supposable  errors  in  the  autographs, 

as  well  as  in  copies  or  translations,  though  an  error  in 

the  autograph  would  be  a  more  serious 

rrors  o     ac      j^-j^tter  than  one  in  a  copy.    In  the  nature 

m  the  Bible  r     i  •  -11 

of  things,  It  seems  impossible  to  prove 

that  any  particular  error  existed  in  the  autographs,  but 
even  if  it  did,  the  record  might  nevertheless  be  remark- 
ably truthful. 

Our  book  of  Chronicles  says  that  Ahaziah  was  forty- 
two  years  old  when  he  began  to  reign,  and  that  Jehoi- 
achin  was  eight  years  old  (2  Chron.  22  :  2;  36  :  9). 
The  corresponding  numbers  in  Kings  are  twenty-two  and 
eighteen  (2  Kings  8  :  26;  24  :  8).  No  one  doubts  that 
two  of  these  four  numbers  are  erroneous.  But  such 
errors  are  rare,  and  do  not  affect  the  character  of  the 
record  for  truthfulness.  Indeed,  there  is  a  respect  in 
which  they  have  a  positive  value  in  attesting  the  truth  of 
the  record ;  for  they  indicate  that  copyists  have  copied 
the  records  accurately,  not  yielding  to  the  temptation  to 
change  them  so  as  to  make  them  agree.  If  errors  were 
so  numerous  or  so  important  as  to  indicate  that  the 
records  have  been  unscrupulously  or  carelessly  made  or 
transmitted,  that  would  be  another  matter.  But  such 
kinds  and  degrees  of  error  do  not  exist;  and  one  may 
be  on  the  right  side  of  the  question  of  the  truthfulness  of 
the  Scriptures,  and  yet  have  his  mind  open  to  any  genu- 
ine proof  that  they  contain  some  errors  of  detail. 

One  is  on  the  wrong  side,  however,  if  without  cogent 
reasons  he  rejects  or  changes  what  seem  to  him  intended 
statements  of  fact  found  in  the  Bible. 

5.  A  more  complex  question  is  that  concerning  errors 


Are  the  Scjnptures  Trtce  ?  21 

of  fact  or  of  teaching  found  in  documents  that  have  been 
copied  into  the  Scriptures. 

Some  cases  of  this  kind  are  clear.     For  example,  we 

find  in  the  book  of  Ezra  (4  :  7-16)  a  copy  of  the  letter 

written  by  Bishlam  and  his  companions 

Bishlam's  Letter    to  the  Persian  king.    The  letter  contains 

false  statements.     Its   falsity  is  one  of 

the  reasons  for  its  being  preserved  by  being  incorporated 

into  the  Scriptures.     Guided  by  the  Spirit  the  Scripture 

writer  saw  that  this  was  the  right  way  to  make  up  his 

record.     He  does  not  indorse  the  falsehood  he  reports, 

and  he  is  in  no  way  responsible  for  it.    This  and  similar 

cases  present  no  difficulty. 

How  is  it  with  the  one  hundred  thirty-seventh  Psalm, 
and  with  some  of  the  other  imprecatory  Psalms?  Do 
these  belong  in  the  Bible  through  the 
Difficult  Psalms  inspiration  of  their  authors,  or  through 
that  of  the  men  who  collected  and  ar- 
ranged the  book  of  Psalms?  If  you  put  the  worst  inter- 
pretation on  the  meaning  of  these  Psalms,  if  you  regard 
the  temper  displayed  in  them  as  far  from  saintly,  they 
none  the  less  vividly  teach  historical  facts  and  ethical 
lessons  that  are  vital.  They  teach  by  way  of  w^arning  as 
well  as  of  example.  May  we  hold  that  it  was  for  these 
reasons  that  they  were  incorporated  into  the  Scriptures, 
and  not  because  the  divine  Spirit  prompted  the  original 
utterance  of  them?  Is  the  finding  of  fault  with  their 
contents  necessarily  a  finding  of  fault  with  the  Scrip- 
tures ? 

Or  again,  no  one  doubts  that  the  writers  of  our  exist- 
ing Bible  narratives  drew  their  materials  in  part  from 


22  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

earlier  written  sources.     Probably  no  one  would  claim 
that  the  original  sources  were  in  all  cases  guided  by  in- 
spiration.    If  we  suppose  that  there  were  errors  in  some 
of  the  sources,  how  far  are  we  to  hold  the  inspired  writers 
responsible  for  discovering  and  correct- 
Responsibility      J      ^j^^  errors?    If  they  wrote  under  the 
for  the  Sources     .    °  ^     ,        „    .   .         ,  ^ 

mnuence  of  the   Spirit,  they  of  course 

dealt  with  their  sources  intelligently  and  in  good  faith; 
does  the  Spirit  guarantee  their  work  beyond  this  ? 

The  answer  to  these  questions  depends  on  a  simple 
principle.  The  Scripture  writers  are  responsible  for  the 
statements  of  their  sources  so  far  forth  as  their  using 
them  may  fairly  be  regarded  as  an  indorsement  of  them. 
The  practical  application  of  this  principle  would  not 
always  be  simple. 

These  questions  are  not  utterly  unpractical.  For  ex- 
ample, the  biblical  and  the  Assyrian  chronologies,  as  the 
two  are  commonly  understood,  are  at  variance  for  a 
period  extending  over  several  generations;  and  if  the 
Assyrian  chronology  is  correct  the  Bible  account  of  many 
of  the  events  is  wrong.  The  evidence  seems  to  me  to 
favor  the  biblical  numbers,  but  most  Assyriologists  hold 
the  opposite  opinion.  Is  it  open  to  one  who  holds  their 
opinion  still  to  regard  the  writers  of  the  Scriptures  as 
truthful?  May  he  be  permitted  to  say  that  the  errors 
were  probably  in  the  sources  which  the  Scripture  writers 
used,  that  the  sources  were  mainly  reliable,  that  the  Scrip- 
ture writers  followed  them  in  good  faith,  and  that  they 
are  therefore  blameless  for  their  mistakes,  and  that  there 
is  here  nothing  derogatory  to  their  inspiration?  There 
are  persons  for  whom  this  question  is  vital. 


Are  the  Scriptures  True  ?  23 

6.  These  distinctions  are  important.  We  who  beheve 
in  the  truthfulness  of  the  Scriptures  wish  to  claim  as 
many  allies  as  we  can.  Nevertheless  we  are  compelled 
to  recognize  the  fact  that  we  have  antagonists  as  well  as 
alHes. 

One  is  on  the  wrong  side  if  he  prefers  interpretations 
that  make  Bible  statements  contradictory  or  incredible, 
rather  than  equally  feasible  interpretations  that  make 
them  true. 

One  is  on  the  wrong  side  if  he  needlessly  prefers  in- 
terpretations that  bring  the  statements  of  the  Bible  into 
conflict  with  facts  known  by  means  of  evidence  from 
other  sources. 

One  is  on  the  wrong  side  if,  finding  an  apparent  dis- 
crepancy between  a  biblical  statement  and  evidence  taken 
from  some  other  source,  he  takes  it  for  granted  that  the 
other  source  is  to  be  preferred  to  the  Bible. 

One  is  on  the  wTong  side  if  he  prefers  mere  guesses, 
or  suggested  inferences  from  theories,  to  the  testimony 
found  in  the  Scriptures. 

One  is  on  the  wrong  side  if  he  rejects  the  testimony 

of  the  Scriptures  concerning  the  date  and  authorship  of 

the  various  parts  of  the  Scriptures,  par- 

A^!u     u.  ticularly  in   the   cases   where   this   testi- 

Authorship  -^ 

mony  is  abundant  and  clear.  Of  some 
importance  in  themselves  are  such  questions  as  whether 
Moses  is  in  some  feasible  sense  the  author  of  the  penta- 
teuch,  or  whether  David  is  prominent  as  an  author  of 
the  Psalms ;  though  if  this  were  all,  differences  of  opin- 
ion on  these  questions  might  not  be  utterly  vital.  But 
there  is  another  question  connected  with  these  which  is 


24  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

absolutely  vital.  Are  we  to  regard  as  false  the  congruous 
testimony  concerning  Moses  and  David  which  extends, 
in  hundreds  of  passages,  throughout  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments?  We  could  get  along  with  the  mere  fact 
that  some  one  says  he  does  not  know  who  wrote  the 
pentateuch  and  the  Psalms,  provided  that  fact  terminated 
in  itself;  but  if  his  saying  so  implies  that  the  prophets 
and  apostles  and  evangelists  and  Jesus  were  in  the  habit 
of  making  assertions  which  they  did  not  know  to  be  true, 
that  is  another  matter. 

Finally,  one  is  on  the  wrong  side  if  he  rejects  in  its 

general  outline  and  main  sweep  the  history  of  the  religion 

of  Jehovah  as  it  is  given  in  the  Old  and 

the^  Histon'  ^  "^^^^  Testaments.  These  teach  that 
Abraham  was  a  monotheist ;  that  he  be- 
came possessed  with  the  idea  that  he  and  his  descendants 
were  to  be  Jehovah's  own  people,  chosen  that  all  man- 
kind might  be  blessed  in  them ;  that  Moses  gave  form  to 
the  institutions  of  the  Abrahamic  people,  including  civil 
laws  and  the  ten  commandments  and  an  elaborate  ritual ; 
that  God  trained  them  afterward  for  centuries,  giving 
them  a  succession  of  prophets  to  interpret  to  them  his 
dealings ;  that  as  a  part  of  their  training  he  scattered 
them  among  the  nations ;  that  the  great  movement  cul- 
minated and  took  a  new  departure  in  Jesus.  One  who 
substitutes  for  this  an  outline  which  is  inconsistent  with 
it  at  ever}^  point  should  be  honest  enough  not  to  claim 
that  he  accepts  the  Scriptures  as  truthful. 

In  this  chapter  a  line  has  been  drawn.  The  position 
of  those  who  stand  near  the  line  on  one  side  is  not  very 
far  distant  from  that  of  those  who  stand  near  the  line  on 


Are  the  Scriptures  True  ?  25 

the  other  side.  But  those  who  have  taken  their  stand, 
on  one  side  or  the  other,  are  not  going  to  remain  sta- 
tionary. The  person  who  honestly  accepts  the  Scrip- 
tures as  ordinarily  truthful,  and  who  from  this  point  of 
view  studies  them  reverently,  will  not  fail  later  to  accept 
their  testimony  to  their  own  inspiration,  and  their  claim 
to  the  higher  truthfulness  that  results  from  inspiration. 

But  is  it  important  to  insist  that  the  statements  which 

the  Bible  makes  as  historical  are  true  history  ?    There  are 

persons  who  say :    "Why  bother  with  all 

t»-uf  «"!  —X  o  this?  What  difference  does  it  make? 
Bible  Historicity  ?  .  . 

Even  if  the  Bible  were  all  fiction,  would 
that  necessarily  afifect  its  religious  teachings?  Make  the 
supposition  that  the  Church  of  the  future  should  come  to 
regard  the  Scriptures  as  wholly  made  up  of  myths  and 
legends  and  the  teachings  based  upon  them,  that  would 
not  preclude  its  regarding  the  Scriptures  as  also  the  great 
literature  of  human  religious  experience,  presenting  re- 
ligious ideas  which  we  know  to  be  true,  because  they 
appeal  to  our  judgment.  Suppose  the  Church  of  the 
future  should  take  this  position,  would  that  necessarily 
lessen  the  value  of  the  Scriptures?  The  Bible  gives  us 
religious  ideas  anyhow ;  if  we  get  these,  does  anything 
else  matter?" 

The  answer  to  this  question  is  not  difficult.  First  of 
all,  we  want  to  know  the  truth  in  the  case.  We  want  to 
know  the  truth,  even  if  the  case  is  such  that  we  might 
possibly  make  shift  to  get  along  in  ignorance.  And  the 
truth  is  that  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  purport  to  give 
us  the  history  of  the  religion  of  Jehovah,  and  that  there 
is  every  reason  to  believe  that  they  give  it  correctly. 


26  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

Certainly,  many  of  the  religious  truths  of  the  Bible  are 
self-evidencing.  Men  may  be  sure  that  these  are  true, 
even  if  they  disbelieve  in  the  facts  with  which  the  Bible 
connects  them.  One  who  denies  the  facts  may  never- 
theless find  in  the  Bible  a  wonderful  body  of  religious 
truths.  But  it  is  only  in  very  exceptional  minds  that  the 
truths  would  retain  their  vitality  after  being  dissected 
from  the  facts.  It  would  be  like  cutting  twigs  from  a 
tree  and  putting  them  in  a  vase  with  water;  they  might 
keep  green  and  might  grow,  but  only  for  a  short  time. 
As  a  matter  of  experience,  the  persons  who  deny  the 
facts  commonly  drift  into  the  rejection  of  the  religious 
ideas.  The  Church  of  the  future  might  conceivably  take 
the  position  just  supposed,  but  it  could  not  remain  there 
in  equilibrium.  Its  neglect  of  the  facts  would  result  in 
its  losing  the  ideas,  or  else  its  appreciation  of  the  ideas 
would  result  in  the  fresh  study  and  the  acceptance  of  the 
facts.  The  facts  and  the  religious  teachings  are  bound 
together,  and  cannot  be  permanently  separated. 

See  "Historicity,"  in  Auburn  Seminary  Review,  Oc- 
tober,  1902.     For  Dr.  Robinson's  ideas  concerning  the 

passage  of  the  Red  Sea,  see  his  "Bib- 
Literature        lical  Researches,"  ed.  of  1874,  I.  56  ff. 

For  parallel  instances,  read  Dr.  G.  F. 
Wright's  "Scientific  Confirmations  of  Old  Testament 
History." 


CHAPTER  III 

INSPIRATION  :   HOW   GOD  GAVE  THE  SCRIPTURES 

Introduction:    The  subject  defined.     Old  doctrine  of  inspiration. 
Dictation,       Starting     from     an     agnostic     point     of     view, 

I.  Subordinate  questions :  What  is  verbal  inspiration  ? 
Inspiration    in    details.      Inspiration    and    human    freedom, 

II.  Two  ways  in  which  the  Supreme  Power  influences  men : 
by  providential  leadings  and  by  spiritual  impulses.  These  two 
methods  used  in  giving  the  Scriptures,  "Inspiration"  in  the 
sense  of  spiritual  impulse,  and  in  wider  sense.  The  Scrip- 
ture-giving process.  Agnostic  and  theist  alike  must  believe 
that  it  occurred.  The  national  mission  of  Israel,  The  place 
of  miracle  in  the  process.  The  giving  of  the  Scriptures  by 
the  Supreme  Power  differentiated  from  the  giving  of  other 
literatures.  This  view  explains  the  divine  process  without 
discounting  it.    Literature. 

As  we  have  already  seen,  criticism  has  principally  to 
do  with  the  ordinary  truthfulness  of  the  Scriptures,  and 
not  with  their  alleged  peculiar  divine  origin.  But  the 
problems  concerning  truthfulness  are  closely  connected 
with  those  concerning  divine  origin,  and  may  be  greatly 
simplified  by  our  having  a  proper  view  of  the  latter. 
Supposing  a  person  holds  that  the  Scriptures  were 
in  a  unique  sense  given  by  God,  what  ought  he  to  mean 
by  this  statement?  What  must  he  mean,  provided  his 
meaning  is  thinkable  and  consistent?  A  partial  answer 
to  this  question  will  help  to  clear  away  certain  obscuri- 
ties from  the  questions  concerning  truthfulness. 

I  hold  substantially  to  the  doctrine  of  inspiration  which 
has  been  handed  down  in  the  Church  from  ancient  times, 

27 


28  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

though  I  do  not  intend  to  argue  that  doctrine  in  the  pres- 
ent chapter.  When  I  say  that  I  hold  to  it,  the  statement 
does  not  mean  that  my  views  are  the  same  with  those  of 
every  other  person  who  ever  taught  it.  When  we  speak 
of  the  Scriptures  as  coming  from  God  we  need  to  use 
What  is  the  discrimination.      We    need    to    eliminate 

Old  Doctrine  bugbears.  On  a  subject  that  has  been 
of  Inspiration  ?  discussed  for  centuries  by  hundreds  of 
millions  of  persons,  innumerable  different  views  have 
been  advocated.  You  could  hardly  define  a  view  so 
absurd  but  that  it  has  been  taught  by  somebody.  It  is 
not  uncommon  to  speak  of  some  extreme  and  absurd 
view  as  if  it  were  the  view  that  has  generally  prevailed 
in  the  churches ;  and  it  would  be  difficult  to  devise  a 
meaner  form  of  lying  than  this.  The  essential,  sane  idea 
of  the  old  tradition  is  that  the  Scriptures  are  a  unique 
body  of  literature,  provided  by  God  as  an  especial  reve- 
lation of  himself  to  men,  with  the  use  of  whatever  super- 
human means  were  needed  for  the  purpose,  and  having 
the  authority — that  is  to  say,  the  value  as  evidence — 
which  properly  belongs  to  such  an  especial  communica- 
tion from  God. 

Necessarily   most   of   our   statements    concerning   the 
Supreme  Being  are  more  or  less  anthropomorphic.     We 

cannot  speak  of  God  except  in  human 
Dictation  to  -  ,   ,  .  .     .  . 

Human  Writers    ^^nguage,  and  human^  language  is  based 

on  human  ideas.  This  has  always  been 
so,  and  doubtless  will  always  remain  so.  Intelligent 
people  make  allowance  for  it  in  their  thoughts,  when  they 
speak  of  God.  When  we  say  that  God  gave  the  Scrip- 
tures through  human  authors,  it  is  natural  to  picture  the 


How  God  Gave  the  Scriptures  29 

matter  as  God's  dictating  thoughts  or  words  to  the  human 
author,  just  as  a  business  man  dictates  to  his  stenog- 
rapher. I  fancy  we  shall  never  be  able  utterly  to  elimi- 
nate this  idea,  though  the  theologies  all  repudiate  it,  and 
every  thinker  tries  to  divest  himself  of  it. 

In  many  cases  a  term  which  it  is  difficult  to  make  clear 
by  definition  may  be  made  clear  by  observing  the  facts 
included  under  it.  There  are  certain  facts,  or  alleged 
facts,  included  under  the  statement  that  God  gave  the 
Scriptures,  facts  on  which  I  think  that  persons  of  all 
opinions  will  agree,  which  seem  to  me  to  clear  up  a  good 
deal  that  would  otherwise  be  obscure.  Let  us  attend  to 
some  of  these  facts. 

To  the  end  that  our  argument  may  be  binding  upon 

agnostics  as  well  as  upon  theists,  let  us  start  from  the 

agnostic  point  of  view.     Instead  of  say- 

A^ostirTerms  ?     ^"^  "^^^'"  ^^^  '''  'P^^^  ""^  ^^^  "Supreme 
Power."     To  us  the  Supreme  Power  is 

our  personal  Father  in  heaven,  while  to  the  agnostic  the 
Supreme  Power  is  an  unknown  someone  or  somewhat,  or 
perhaps  a  mere  supposable  term  for  reasoning,  an  alge- 
braic X ;  but  we  can  all  alike  use  it  as  a  term  for  reason- 
ing. As  the  Scriptures  are  in  existence,  no  agnostic 
doubts  that  they  came  into  existence  as  the  product  of 
the  Supreme  Power.  Do  we  know  anything  as  to  the 
processes  by  which  the  Supreme  Power  brought  them 
into  existence? 

I.  First,  let  us  touch  certain  subordinate  questions. 

The  term  "verbal  inspiration"  is  to  many  an  occasion 
of  scoffing.  They  persist  in  thinking  of  verbal  inspira- 
tion as  if  it  were  equivalent  to  God's  mechanically  die- 


30  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticisiii 

tating  words  to  the  writers  of  Scripture.  But  that  is  not 
the  natural  meaning  of  the  term.  That  meaning  is  repudi- 
ated by  the  churches  and  the  theologians  who  profess  to 
believe  in  verbal  inspiration.  And  no  one 
Verbal  Inspiration  doubts — no  agnostic,  even,  can  possibly 
doubt — that  the  Supreme  Power  has  so 
wrought  that  human  thought  and  expression  are  insepa- 
rably connected,  so  connected  that  whatever  affects  one 
affects  the  other.  If  inspiration  is  a  fact,  it  necessarily 
touches  the  words  as  well  as  the  ideas. 

Again,  ridicule  has  been  heaped  on  certain  state- 
ments, made  by  men  who  have  been  regarded  as  theo- 
logical extremists,  to  the  effect  that  the 
nTlDet^"  divine  influence  in  the  Scriptures  ex- 
tends to  the  minutest  details — to  such 
matters  as  the  crossing  of  a  t  or  the  dotting  of  an  i.  It 
is  supposable  that  some  men  may  have  made  this  state- 
ment absurdly,  making  it  from  a  wrong  point  of  view. 
But  from  the  point  of  view  of  natural  law,  the  statement 
is  simply  and  obviously  true,  and  every  scientist  holds 
it — the  agnostic  scientists  as  well  as  the  theistic.  From 
this  point  of  view  the  production  of  the  Scriptures  is  a 
series  of  events  like  any  other  series ;  and  every  detail  is 
minutely  provided  for  beforehand,  under  the  principle 
of  the  persistence  of  force.  No  one  doubts  that  the 
Supreme  Power  has  predetermined  the  contents  of  every 
copy,  even  to  the  dotting  of  an  i  or  the  crossing  of  a  t. 

The  Church  beliefs  concerning  Inspiration,  however, 
are  not  formulated  from  this  point  of  view,  but  from  the 
different  point  of  view  which  recognizes  human  free- 
dom.   Even  if  we  remain  in  bondage  to  the  mental  picture 


How  God  Gave  the  Scriptures  31 

of  God  dictating  words  and  the  human  author  writing 
them  down,  even  this  does  not  entirely  exclude  our  recog- 
nizing the  personal  peculiarities  of  the  human  author. 

Most  stenographers,  writing  letters  for  a 
Inspiration  and       ,       .  ,  ,  ^  j  j 

„  ^      ,        Dusmess  man,  have  to  correct  words  and 

Human  Freedom 

supply  grammar,  as  well  as  furnish 
spelling  and  punctuation.  It  is  a  fortunate  thing  for 
some  business  men  that  a  business  man's  literary  style 
changes  when  he  changes  his  stenographer.  All  the 
formulated  doctrines  of  inspiration  teach  that  there  are 
human  elements  in  the  Scriptures,  as  well  as  divine  ele- 
ments. They  affirm  that  while  the  Scriptures  were  in  a 
unique  sense  given  by  God,  they  were  given  through 
human  authors,  each  having  his  own  characteristics. 
They  unanimously  reject  the  idea  of  mechanical  dictation. 
Whoever,  in  attacking  old-fashioned  views,  neglects  these 
facts,  is  guilty  of  foul  play. 

II.  These  details  lead  up  to  a  wider  view.  Accord- 
ing to  the  witness  of  general  human  experience  there  are 
Providential  ^^o  ways  in  which  the  Supreme  Power 

versus  deals  with  men.     One  way  we  may  call 

Spiritual  Leadings  providential ;  it  is  through  our  heredity 
and  environment.  The  other  way  we  may  call  spiritual ; 
it  includes  impulses  and  illuminations  that  come  to  us 
as  individuals. 

Of  course,  every  theist  accepts  this  distinction.  The 
theist  believes  in  heredity  and  environment,  and  he  also 
believes  in  spiritual  impulse  and  illumination  as  facts. 
He  holds  that  a  human  being  may  have  experience  of 
these  facts  in  prayer  and  in  the  matter  of  guidance  by 
the  Spirit  of  God.    And  an  agnostic  cannot  deny  the  ex- 


32  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

istence  of  the  phenomena  of  spiritual  impulse  and  illumi- 
nation, as  experienced  in  some  human  minds,  though  he 
may  minimize  the  value  of  such  experiences,  and  his  ex- 
planation of  them  may  be  different  from  that  of  the 
theist. 

The  reality  and  distinctness  of  such  experiences  are  not 
affected  by  the  question  whether,  ultimately,  they  may  be 
resolved  into  forms  of  heredity  and  environment.  At 
all  events,  they  are  a  class  by  themselves.  If  they  are 
regarded  as  a  part  of  our  heredity  and  environment,  then 
they  constitute  a  species  under  that  genus,  distinguishable 
from  all  the  other  species,  and  are  just  as  distinctive  as 
if  they  constituted  a  different  genus. 

When    we    speak    of    inspiration    in    connection    with 

the  Scriptures,  we  should  not  permit  ourselves  to  forget 

that  the  word  is  customarily  used  in  two 

••I  •  ti  *'  <^^^te  different  meanings.  In  the  mean- 
ing suggested  by  the  etymology,  and  by 
the  definitions  commonly  given,  inspiration  is  an  im- 
pelling force  introduced  into  our  being.  We  have  the 
conception  of  the  Spirit  of  God  taking  possession  and 
control  of  the  faculties  of  the  writer  of  Scripture.  But 
we  also  use  the  term  inspiration  to  denote  the  sum  of  all 
the  divine  influences  which  enter  into  the  product  made 
by  the  Scripture-writer;  and  we  shall  presently  see  that 
the  contents  of  the  term,  when  used  in  this  sense,  include 
much  more  than  its  contents  when  used  in  the  other  sense. 
No  fault  is  to  be  found  with  this  double  use  of  the  word, 
but  it  requires  us  to  guard  with  unusual  care  against 
ambiguity. 

Speaking  generally,  the  Supreme  Power,  in  giving  men 


How  God  Gave  the  Scriptures  33 

the  Scriptures,  has  dealt  precisely  as  in  other  matters. 
The  process  of  originating  the   Scriptures  may  be  de- 
scribed thus :    By  providential  and  spirit- 
"^^  ^""pr^ocws     ^^^  influences  the  Supreme  Power  caused 
men   to    perform   actions,    and   by   like 
influences  caused  men  to  record  the  actions  performed. 
Of  course,  the  making  of  the  record  included  not  merely 
the  taking  down  of  memoranda,  but  all  the  subsequent 
literary  processes.     In  their  final  form  the  records  thus 
made  are  the  Scriptures  as  we  have  them. 

If  we  follow  the  record,  the  Supreme  Power  brought 
it  about  that  Abraham  existed  and  came  to  Palestine. 
The  Supreme  Power  brought  this  about  partly  through 
Abraham's  heredity  and  environment,  including  proc- 
esses of  nature  and  human  historical  movements  up  to 
that  date,  and  partly  through  ideas  and  impulses  that 
operated  in  the  mind  of  Abraham.  Like  statements  might 
be  made  concerning  Isaac  and  Jacob  and  Moses  and 
Samuel,  and  all  the  other  men  and  peoples  of  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments.  The  theist  says  that  the  Supreme 
Power  brought  all  this  to  pass  as  a  part  of  his  infinite 
purpose ;  the  agnostic  is  uncertain  as  to  the  purpose,  but 
he  agrees  with  the  theist  in  regard  to  the  fact.  Again, 
if  we  follow  the  record,  the  Supreme  Power  brought  it 
about  that  other  men  existed,  such  men  as  Moses  and 
Samuel  and  Jeremiah  and  Matthew  and  Paul,  men  of 
certain  heredity  and  environment  and  character;  and 
that  certain  ideas  and  impulses  came  into  their  minds; 
and  that  they  were  led  to  write  records  concerning  them- 
selves and  others,  these  records  ultimately  assuming  the 
form  of  our  existing  Scriptures. 


34  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

If  one  accepts  the  scriptural  account,  he  must  believe 
that  these  were  the  processes  by  which  the  Supreme 
Power  gave  the  Scriptures  to  men ;  and  if  one  does  not 
accept  the  scriptural  account,  still  he  cannot  help  believ- 
ing that  these  were  the  processes.  If  the  events  that 
made  up  the  processes  were  not  those  described  in  the 
Bible,  then  they  were  other  events,  transacted  by  other 
men;  but  in  any  case,  it  was  by  such  processes  that  the 
Scriptures  came  from  the  Supreme  Power. 

Under  the  description  just  given  we  may  include  much 
more  than  the  narratives  of  external  events.  Consider- 
ing that  a  sermon  or  a  song  or  a  proverb  or  a  mental 
experience  is  each  just  as  really  an  event  of  history  as 
is  a  battle  or  the  accession  of  a  king,  all  parts  of  the 
Bible  are  included  in  the  process  indicated. 

This  is  reasonable,  is  it  not?  No  idea  is  more  gen- 
erally accepted  than  that  the  Supreme  Power  of  the  uni- 
E:ach  Great  verse  brings  it  about  that  certain  nations 
People  Has  or  persons  accomplish  each  a  certain 
a  Mission  mission.      We   all   believe    that   ancient 

Egypt  made  its  own  definite  contribution  to  human  prog- 
ress. So  did  Greece  and  Rome.  So  do  Great  Britain, 
France,  Germany,  Japan.  This  is  part  of  the  law  of  the 
continuity  of  the  universe. 

If  other  peoples  have  each  its  mission,  so  has  Israel. 
Israel's  great  contribution  has  been  the  revealing  of  a 
certain  type  of  monotheism  to  mankind.  The  Supreme 
Power  caused  it  to  come  to  pass  that  certain  things  were 
experienced  or  done  by  the  founders  of  Israel  and  by 
the  Israelite  nation  and  the  nations  that  came  into  con- 
tact with  Israel,  and  by  Jesus  and  John  and  Paul  and 


How  God  Gave  the  Scriptures  35 

other  persons  and  peoples;  and  that  the  prophets  and 
evangeHsts  and  others  made  records  of  the  events  thus 
occurring;  and  that  these  became  differentiated  from 
other  writings.  Through  these  processes  the  tremendous 
monotheistic  fact  known  as  the  reHgion  of  Jehovah  has 
come  to  be  a  widespread  force  among  men.  The  records 
thus  produced  are  our  Scriptures.  Ahke  in  the  events 
and  in  the  making  of  the  records,  the  influences  which 
we  call  providential  were  operative,  and  these  were  sup- 
plemented by  especial  spiritual  impulses  in  the  minds  of 
individuals,  who  were  thus  made  leaders. 

Thus  far,  surely,  even  the  agnostic  must  go  along  with 

us,  though  he  will,  of  course,  part  company  when  we 

insist   that    some   of    the    men    through 

Miraculous  Gifts   whom    the    Supreme    Power    gave    the 

Scriptures   possessed    superhuman   gifts 

which   served   to   authenticate   their  claim  to  be   God's 

messengers. 

If  our  statement  of  the  matter  closed  at  this  point  it 
would  be  fatally  defective.  Is  it  not  true  that  other  lit- 
The  Scriptures  eratures  also  owe  their  origin  to  the 
Differentiated  from  Supreme  Power,  and  that  they  came  into 
Other  Literatures  existence  through  similar  processes  ? 
Yes,  of  course  that  is  true,  barring,  perhaps,  the  ele- 
ment of  miracle.  Does  it  not  follow  that  the  Scriptures 
are  simply  on  the  same  footing  with  other  literatures? 
No,  that  does  not  follow.  The  footing  is  the  same  so 
far  as  the  general  description  goes,  but  no  further. 
When  you  look  at  the  differences  you  see  that  the  Scrip- 
tures are  separated  by  a  wide  interval  from  all  the  other 
literatures.     The  historical  movement  of  which  the  Old 


^6  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

and  New  Testaments  are  the  record  is  the  only  one  of 
its  kind.  In  the  separate  incidents  of  the  history  no 
people  is  more  typically  human  than  Israel,  but  Israel's 
history  as  a  whole  has  no  parallel.  The  Israelitish  people 
is  unique.  Other  religions  present  no  phenomena  like 
the  preaching  of  the  gospel  among  the  nations.  The 
Jesus  of  the  evangelists,  however  completely  human, 
stands  alone  among  historical  characters.  The  prophets 
and  apostles,  typical  men  all  of  them,  intensely  like  other 
men  in  their  human  character,  are  nevertheless  to  be 
classed  by  themselves.  The  ethical  superiority  of  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments  is  unquestionable.  In  their  character 
as  a  worthy  revelation  from  the  Supreme  Power  they 
are  without  a  rival.  Our  Scriptures  have  such  power 
over  their  adherents  that  they  have  been  led  to  translate 
them  into  hundreds  of  languages,  for  missionary  pur- 
poses ;  in  this  they  are  alone  among  the  sacred  writ- 
ings of  the  earth.  Tens  of  thousands  of  men  who  dis- 
believe the  Bible  are  compelled  to  pay  it  the  tribute  of 
making  it  the  subject  of  their  studies.  The  religion  of 
Jehovah  is  confessedly  the  one  religion  that  has  some 
possibility  of  becoming  universal.  Whatever  similarity 
there  may  have  been  in  the  processes  of  production,  the 
Scriptures  as  a  product  are  fully  differentiated. 

The  view  of  the  giving  of  the  Scriptures  which  has 
been  presented  does  not  make  them  any  less  divine  than 

No  Discounting    ^^  they  were  directly  dictated  by  God  to 
of  the  their  human  writers.     It  is  just  as  com- 

Divine  Element  petent  for  God  to  Operate  through  many 
persons  working  in  various  ways,  as  through  one  person 
working  in  one  way.   In  the  view  that  has  been  presented 


How  God  Gave  the  Scriptures  37 

there  is  precisely  the  same  room  for  the  personal  divine 
element,  or  for  the  element  of  miracle,  as  in  any  other 
view.  It  is  likely  that  a  person  who  disbelieves  in  the 
superhuman  might  infer  its  absence,  holding  that  the 
processes  that  have  been  described  sufficiently  account  for 
the  Scriptures  as  a  product;  but  such  an  inference  is 
merely  the  expression  of  his  own  view ;  it  has  no  logical 
validity.  In  recognizing  the  processes  in  which  the  Scrip- 
tures originated,  we  do  not  estimate  them  as  any  the  less 
divine,  or  any  the  less  unique,  or,  indeed,  as  any  the  less 
a  miracle ;  but  we  do  obtain  a  position  for  a  clearer  un- 
derstanding of  many  things  concerning  them.  We  make 
no  concessions  to  the  agnostic,  though  we  go  as  far  as 
possible  in  claiming  his  allegiance  to  the  truth  as  we  see  it. 

We  who  think  of  the  Supreme  Power  as  our  heavenly 
Father  find  him  revealed  everywhere,  but  we  particularly 
find  in  the  Scriptures  the  memoranda  which  he  has  caused 
to  be  made  to  teach  us  the  things  that  we  most  need  to 
know. 

For  a  fuller  treatment  of  the  functions  of  the  au- 
thors of  the  Scriptures  see  "The  Prophets  and  the  Prom- 
ise," especially  Chapters  VI  and  VII. 
Literature  One  may  read  up  on  Inspiration,  Reve- 
lation, and  similar  topics,  in  the  formal 
works  on  Theology,  or  in  encyclopedias  or  Teachers' 
Bibles  or  other  works  of  reference.  These  will  refer  the 
reader  to  other  literature. 


CHAPTER  IV 

HOW  TO  ACCOUNT  FOR  THE  EXISTING  SITUATION 

Introduction:  The  rapid  advance  of  the  Modern  View.  Does 
this  prove  it  to  be  valid?  Can  the  movement  be  otherwise 
accounted    for?      Such    a    movement    arises    in    a    situation. 

1.  The  older  views  needed  supplementing.  Inadequate  rather 
than  incorrect.     This  has  been  neglected  by  their  defenders. 

2.  The  older  statements  of  truth  needed  to  be  transposed  into 
the  forms  of  modern  thinking.  The  Protestant  creeds  ante- 
dated the  conscious  acceptance  of  the  inductive  philosophy. 
Specialization  and  its  consequences.  Change  in  religious 
thinking.  Our  attitude  toward  the  superhuman.  The 
Modern  View  an  unsuccessful  attempt  to  meet  these  needs. 

3.  The  older  tradition  held  by  some  in  a  mechanical  way. 
For  example,  Adam's  rib,  or  the  book  of  Job.  Truthfulness 
as  defined  in  Chapter  II.  The  law  of  deteriorating  tradition. 
The  allegation  that  the  Modern  View  makes  the  Bible  "a 
new  book."  Conclusion :  What  the  old  tradition  now  needs 
is  not  so  much  a  defense  as  a  constructive  exposition. 

Current  literature  is  full  of  such  terms  as  "higher  criti- 
cism," "the  higher  critics,"  "the  Modern  View."  These 
terms  are  commonly  used  to  designate  a  certain  type  of 
opinion  concerning  the  Bible,  and  the  men  who  hold  such 
opinions.  .  All  well-informed  persons  understand  that, 
properly  speaking,  higher  criticism  is  simply  the  use  of 
critical  method  in  investigating  the  origin  and  the  struc- 
ture of  writings ;  but  they  keep  on  using  the  term  as  if  it 
applied  only  to  a  certain  line  of  critical  theories.  The 
opponents  of  these  theories  claim  to  be  themselves  higher 
critics,  as  expert  as  others ;  and  yet  they  join  with  the 
crowd  in  designating  as  especially  higher  critics  the  men 
38 


The  Existing  Situation  39 

whom  they  regard  as  very  uncritical.     They  claim  to  be 

as  thoroughly  up  to  date  as  the  men  whom  they  oppose, 

and  yet  they  habitually  speak  of  those  men's  opinions  as 

**the  Modern  View." 

During  the  past  forty  years  the  movement  designated 

by  these  terms  has  advanced  rapidly  in  the  Protestant 

world.    It  has  taken  possession  of  col- 
Prevalence  of  the    -  J  '         '.'  J     ..u     1      •     1 
,       „.              leges    and    universities    and    theological 

schools  that  were  founded  to  teach  views 
the  opposite  of  those  which  it  teaches.  It  has  come  into 
the  control  of  religious  newspapers  and  of  denominational 
publishing  houses.  It  is  pushing  its  way  into  Sunday- 
schools  and  Christian  organizations  of  all  kinds.  It  is 
active  in  the  foreign  mission  fields,  antagonizing  what 
the  older  missionaries  have  taught  concerning  the  Scrip- 
tures. 

Do  these  facts  prove  that  the  movement  is  a  good  one  ? 
Does  its  success  demonstrate  that  further  opposition  to  it 
is  unreasonable?  The  question  in  the  present  chapter  is 
not  whether  the  movement  is  actually  good,  but  whether 
the  progress  it  has  made  proves  it  to  be  good.  In  other 
words,  could  this  progress  be  accounted  for,  supposing 
the  movement  to  be  bad? 

Such  a  great  movement  in  human  thinking  always 
arises  in  a  situation,  and  can  be  more  or  less  perfectly 

accounted  for  by  the  situation.  Gener- 
The  Product  of  a  ^^j  ^^^^  ^  movement  is  an  attempt  to 
Situation  •'  ,  .        1  1  ,         • 

secure  something  better  than  the  situa- 
tion in  which  it  starts.  It  is  an  effort  toward  shaking  off 
conditions  that  have  become  obsolete,  and  reaching  an  im- 
proved condition.     There  is  seldom  a  revolution  except 


40  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

when  there  is  something  evil  to  revolt  against.  This  is 
true  even  in  cases  when  the  revolution  results  in  a  worse 
condition  than  that  against  which  it  is  a  protest. 

We  must  be  brief  in  dealing  with  the  conditions  in 
which  this  so-called  Modern  View  movement  has 
achieved  its  successes  during  the  past  few  decades.  We 
will  look  at  it  in  only  one  aspect,  and  will  note  just  three 
practical  points. 

I.  First,  the  views  formerly  held  concerning  the  Scrip- 
tures were  at  many  points  inadequate  and  incomplete, 
and  at  some  points  incorrect;  there  was  a  real  need  for 
modifying  them. 

The  defenders  of  the  older  views  have  been  largely  to 
blame  for  the  successes  of  their  adversaries.  The  Prot- 
estant doctrine  has  never  been  that  the 

^T    J  J «    . .       creed    formulas    were    infallible.      The 
Needed  Revision 

defenders  of  the  creeds  should  have  been 
the  first  to  recognize  their  imperfections  when  these  be- 
came apparent;  and  they  should  have  provided  the  rem- 
edy. They  should  not  have  waited  for  their  adversaries 
to  discover  the  weak  points,  and  use  them  for  purposes 
of  attack.  In  the  making  of  the  revised  translations,  in 
many  languages,  these  same  old-fashioned  scholars  dis- 
played strong  scholarship,  and  appreciation  of  current 
needs ;  they  should  have  shown  the  same  qualities,  so  far 
as  these  were  needed,  in  the  revision  of  current  ideas  con- 
cerning the  Bible.  They  have  failed  here,  leaving  this 
work  of  revision  to  be  done  by  their  opponents ;  and  the 
failure  has  been  disastrous. 

The  real  objection  to  the  older  views  Is  mainly  not  that 
they  are  incorrect,  but  that  they  are  inadequate.  To  illus- 


The  Existing  Situation  41 

trate,  take  any  of  the  earlier  Teachers'  Bibles  published 
about  the  middle  of  the  last  century.  Those  Bibles  were 
improvements  on  anything  that  had  preceded  them.  They 
were  admirable  in  themselves,  and  a  large  part  of  their 
contents  is  of  permanent  value.  But  turn  the  leaves  of 
Incomplete  ^"^  ^^  them,  and  notice  at  every  opening 
Rather  than  its  inferiority  to  helps  that  are  now  avail- 
Incorrect  able.  Men  were  asking  a  thousand 
questions  concerning  the  Bible.  Scholars  and  others, 
through  travels  and  explorations  and  geographical  sur- 
veys and  studies  of  nature,  and  yet  more  through  lin- 
guistic and  bibliographical  investigation,  were  accumu- 
lating the  facilities  for  answering  these  questions.  Some 
of  the  men  who  held  the  older  views  were  alive  to  the 
opportunities ;  but  taken  as  a  whole  they  have  not  shown 
themselves  alive,  but  have  left  these  opportunities  to  be 
utilized  by  their  assailants.  From  this  their  assailants 
have  derived  large  advantage. 

2.  Further,  since  the  forming  of  the  Protestant  creeds, 
with  the  doctrines  concerning  Scripture  therein  contained, 
men's  habits  of  thinking  have  greatly  changed.  Suppos- 
ing those  doctrines  to  be  perfectly  correct,  there  is  still 
the  need  of  transposing  them  into  the  forms  of  modern 
thought;  for  lack  of  this  the  people  of  our  generation 
misapprehend  them. 

In  saying  this  I  do  not  refer  particularly  to  certain 

recent  philosophical  discussions,  but  to  the  whole  great 

movement  of  change  from  the  time  of 

jj^.  J.  Francis  Bacon  till  now.    Whether  Bacon 

discovered  the  inductive  philosophy,  and 

Isaac  Newton  the  law  of  gravitation,  is  a  question  that 


42  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

depends  in  part  on  definition.  Men  always  reasoned 
inductively,  and  always  had  a  practical  knowledge  of 
gravitation.  Such  men  as  Bacon  and  Newton  merely 
formulate  knowledge  which  men  previously  had,  and  in 
formulating  it  make  men  more  conscious  of  it,  and  vastly 
extend  its  scope.  This  effect  has  been  exceedingly  marked 
in  the  centuries  since  the  rise  of  Protestantism.  The 
creeds  of  the  churches  were  framed  on  the  basis  of  the 
older  philosophical  methods.  Since  then  men's  habits  of 
thinking  have  greatly  changed.  Our  point  of  view  is  dif- 
ferent from  that  of  our  predecessors.  We  are  liable  to 
understand  a  statement  of  theirs  as  meaning  something 
very  different  from  what  they  intended. 

These  differences,  arising  from  our  different  ways  of 

looking  at  things,  are  intensified  by  our  modern  trend 

toward  specialization  in  thinking.     Our 

Specialization     range  of  objects  of  thought  has  widened  ; 

ever    increasingly    we    pay    attention    to 

details ;  less  and  less  is  it  possible  to  be  intelligent  on  all 

subjects;  through  these  and  other  causes  our  thinking 

has  become  specialized  to  an  unprecedented  extent. 

The  differences  in  our  mental  habits  affect  our  methods 
of  investigation,  and  affect  in  various  ways  the  general 
quality  of  our  thinking.  On  the  whole,  doubtless,  our 
modern  thinking  is  superior,  but  it  is  not  so  at  all  points. 
Leaving  exceptional  individuals  out  of  the  account,  a 
present  day  specialist  in  any  region  of  thought  may  do 
better  thinking  In  his  specialty  than  men  ever  did  before ; 
but  this  is  accomplished  in  part  at  the  cost  of  the  neglect 
of  all-around  thinking.  If  this  generation  in  some  re- 
spects surpasses  preceding  generations  in  its  mental  work, 


The  Existing  Situation  43 

it  also  outdoes  them  in  plausible  thinking  that  is  utterly 
superficial  and  futile.  For  instance,  there  are  a  million 
persons  who  confidently  tell  us  just  how  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States  should  be  amended,  though  they 
could  not,  if  called  upon,  correctly  state  the  provisions 
which  they  say  need  amendment. 

These   changes    in    our    habits   of    thinking   are   very 
marked  in  the  regions  of  religious  thought.    Saying  noth- 
ing now  of   false  opinions  held  in  the 
Differing  Relig.  ^^  .  .1  •  .,  • 

ious  Conceptions  P^'^  ^^  ^^^  present,  and  saymg  nothmg 
of  exceptional  men,  the  average  intelli- 
gent theist  of  past  generations  conceived  of  God  as 
an  infinite  person,  and  then  found  this  infinite  person 
controlling  all  things,  existing  in  all  things,  upholding  all 
things;  the  average  intelligent  theist  of  to-day  thinks  of 
God  as  the  supreme  energy  existing  in  all  things,  uphold- 
ing all  things,  and  manifesting  personal  characteristics. 
The  two  conceptions  may  perfectly  coincide,  or  they  may 
differ  in  a  degree,  but  at  all  events  they  have  different 
points  of  view. 

The  change  in  the  realm  of  religious  thought  is  espe- 
cially marked  in  the  case  of  miracles.  Our  problem  of  the 
relations  of  miracle  to  natural  law  did 

cj        ,  not  exist  for  the  writers  of  the  Scrip- 

Superhuman  ^ 

tures.  They  used  natural  laws,  and  in 
using  them  recognized  them.  To  some  extent  they 
formulated  natural  laws ;  witness  the  book  of  Ecclesiastes, 
for  example.  The  whole  doctrine  of  the  persistence  of 
energy  was  latent  in  their  conception  of  God  as  the  uni- 
versal Creator  and  Upholder.  But  they  had  no  such  con- 
sciousness of  natural  law  as  we  have.    When  they  found 


44  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

a  nest  in  a  tree  they  knew  that  the  mind  of  a  bird  had 
been  using  the  forces  of  nature.  When  they  found  the 
limb  of  the  tree  lopped  with  sharp  iron,  they  knew  that 
the  mind  which  had  been  using  the  forces  of  nature  was 
that  of  a  man.  Precisely  in  the  same  way,  when  they 
perceived  a  use  of  the  forces  of  nature  that  was  other- 
wise unaccountable,  they  inferred  from  it  the  operation 
of  the  superhuman  Mind.  On  the  one  hand,  they  recog- 
nized the  wonderful  works  of  God  as  wrought  in  the 
storm  and  the  earthquake  and  the  sunshine  and  the  daily 
gifts  to  men  and  the  ordinary  course  of  nature,  and,  on 
the  other  hand,  those  different  wonderful  works  by  which 
God  authenticated  Moses  or  Elisha  or  Jesus  Christ  and 
his  followers ;  they  made  a  difference  between  these  two 
classes  of  wonderful  works,  but  both  were  alike  to  them 
the  using  of  the  forces  of  nature  by  the  superhuman  Mind. 
When,  in  these  later  centuries,  the  idea  of  natural  law 
came  to  be  dominant  in  men's  minds,  there  arose  the 

problem  of  the  relations  of  natural  law 
. .  to   miracles.      Many   accepted   the   idea 

that  a  miracle  is  a  violation  or  a  sus- 
pension of  natural  law.  With  this  conception  it  is  theo- 
logically important  to  affirm  that  God  can  work  miracles, 
that  is,  that  he  is  the  master  and  not  the  slave  of  nature ; 
but  the  modern  mind  is  not  hospitable  to  the  idea  that 
God  does  in  fact  ever  suspend  the  continuity  of  nature. 
And  why  should  one  think  of  an  alleged  miracle  as  a 
suspension  of  natural  law?  A  miracle  is,  at  furthest, 
an  occurrence  which  our  finite  minds  cannot  account  for 
under  natural  law ;  whether  the  infinite  Mind  can  so  ac- 
count for  it  is  another  question. 


The  Existing  Situation  45 

The  statement  is  frequently  made  that  we  ought  no 
longer  to  distinguish  between  the  natural  and  the  super- 
natural. The  statement  is  true  so  far  forth  as  it  means 
that  we  ought  to  recognize  God  as  a  reality  in  ordinary 
events ;  it  is  false  to  the  extent  to  which  it  discredits 
the  idea  of  extraordinary  manifestations  of  God. 

The  problem  of  miracle  includes  the  problem  of  the 
Bible  itself,  in  its  claim  to  be  a  superhuman  revelation 
from  God. 

In  fine,  the  men  who  seriously  believe  in  miracle  have 

different  ideas  on  the  subject  from  some  that  have  been 

held  in  the  past.     Formerly  men  recog- 

-,    ^"  f         nized  God  in  the  uniformities  of  nature, 
Emphasis  . ' 

but  emphasized  the  extraordinary  mani- 
festations of  him ;  now  we  emphasize  the  ordinary  mani- 
festations, no  matter  how  sincerely  we  accept  the  extra- 
ordinary as  real.  Good  men  in  the  past  have  gone  as  far 
as  possible  in  interpreting  miracles  into  the  Bible,  because 
they  thought  that  they  were  thus  doing  honor  to  God ; 
the  more  miracle,  the  more  glory.  In  our  generation  we 
are  disposed  to  go  to  excess  in  interpreting  miracles  out 
of  the  Bible. 

In  these  and  other  ways  the  thought-habits  of  the 
European  races  have  so  changed  as  to  call  for  changes 
in  old  statements  of  opinion.  Even  one  who  holds  that 
the  old  statements  are  perfectly  correct  ought  to  be  able 
to  see  that  they  need  restating,  in  order  to  render  them 
intelligible.  The  so-called  Modern  View  owes  much  of 
its  success  to  the  fact  that  it  is  an  attempt  to  meet  this 
need.  I  do  not  think  that  it  is  a  successful  attempt.  In 
it  good  and  bad  are  mingled. 


46  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

3.  A  third  point  along  the  same  line  concerns  the  me- 
chanical way  in  which  many  persons  have  come  to  hold 
the  older  opinions  on  the  Bible. 

Illustrate  this  by  an  instance  or  two.  From  childhood 
I  have  been  accustomed  to  think  of  the  account  in  Gene- 
sis of  Jehovah's  making  the  woman  out 
Adam's  Rib  of  the  rib  of  the  man  as  being,  not  a 
literal  report  of  an  actual  occurrence, 
but  a  picturesque  way  of  stating  the  fine  and  intimate 
relations  that  exist  between  husband  and  wife.  This 
meaning  was  as  intelligible  to  the  boys  and  girls  and 
older  people  of  the  past  as  it  is  to  us.  I  am  not  sure 
that  I  know  of  any  person  who  seriously  holds  a  dif- 
ferent idea  of  the  matter.  But  several  times  a  year  my 
eye  falls  upon  some  printed  article  in  which  conservative 
people  are  sneered  at  as  thinking  that  the  story  in  ques- 
tion is  a  literal  account  of  an  actual  event ;  and  commonly 
the  sneer  draws  a  reply  from  some  conservative ;  and  the 
reply  virtually  confesses  that  the  sneer  is  due,  for  it 
accuses  the  sneerer  not  of  misrepresenting  the  conserva- 
tive view,  but  of  denying  the  truthfulness  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. That  is,  the  man  who  replies  is  not  sufficiently  on 
the  alert  to  know  what  he  himself  thinks  of  the  Scrip- 
ture passage. 

All  the  old-fashioned  people  regard  the  book  of  Job 
as  a  poem.  They  have  much  to  say  concerning  its  excel- 
lence as  a  poem,  and  concerning  its 
The  Book  of  Job  poetical  peculiarities.  Ask  them  whether 
they  think  that  the  author  of  the  book  of 
Job  intended  us  to  understand  that  Job  and  his  friends 
actually  talked  in  metrical  lines  and  strophes,  and  they 


The  Existmg  Situation  47 

will  reply,  "Of  course  not;  the  author  of  the  book  put 
what  they  said  into  the  poetical  form  in  which  we  find 
it."  But  there  are  those  who  have  never  thought  so  far 
as  this  concerning  the  book  of  Job.  They  have  an  idea 
that  the  Bible  says  that  each  person  in  Job  spoke  pre- 
cisely the  words  that  the  poem  puts  into  his  mouth.  The 
men  of  the  newer  traditions  habitually  speak  of  this  last 
view  as  being  that  held  by  conservatives,  and  very  com- 
monly the  reply  consists  in  accusing  these  men  not  of 
misrepresenting  the  conservative  opinion,  but  of  denying 
the  truthfulness  of  the  Scriptures. 

Very  few  advocates  of  the  older  tradition  will  fail,  in 
defining  the  idea  of  the  truthfulness  of  the  Scriptures,  to 

accept  the  positions  laid  down  in  Chap- 
^°  ,.  .  ter  II  of  this  volume ;  and  yet  the  printed 

articles  of  conservative  men  largely 
ignore  those  distinctions.  It  is  especially  true  that  their 
opponents  charge  them  by  the  wholesale  with  a  mechani- 
cal dead-level  view  of  the  truthfulness  of  the  Bible,  and 
that  they  do  not  take  the  trouble  to  repudiate  the  charge. 
This  has  been  the  great  weakness  in  the  conservative 
propaganda.  Further  illustrations  need  not  be  given  here, 
for  the  point  will  be  illustrated  in  every  one  of  the  fol- 
lowing chapters. 

This  weakness  of  the  conservative  side  is  itself  an  in- 
stance under  a  general  law  that  governs  human  thinking. 

When    discussions    arise    concerning    a 
ti^  T    A-^"^^'  rnatter,  men  get  to  thinking  in  regard  to 

the  matter.  As  long  as  the  disputes  are 
acute  the  mental  activity  continues.  When  a  large  body 
of  men  regard  the  question  as  settled,  they  accept  the 


48  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

results  reached,  and  no  longer  take  the  trouble  to  think 
them  out.  The  accepted  result  becomes  a  tradition,  and 
immediately  men's  ideas  of  the  meaning  of  the  tradition 
begin  to  deteriorate.  Men  come  to  accept  the  tradition 
carelessly,  mechanically,  with  inert  minds.  There  comes 
a  time  when  there  is  need  of  new  discussion — something 
that  will  wake  up  the  mental  energies  that  have  become 
dormant,  so  far  as  any  particular  region  of  thought  is 
concerned.  A  condition  of  this  kind  had  become  preva- 
lent in  our  attitude  toward  the  Scriptures.  In  the  case 
of  our  great-grandfathers  the  condition  was  in  part  in- 
hibited by  their  habit  of  thoughtfulness  toward  God  and 
theology.  There  came  a  generation  in  which  theology 
was  largely  submerged,  in  the  alleged  interests  of  prac- 
tical religion,  and  then  the  mechanical  ways  of  under- 
standing the  Bible  became  more  exclusively  mechanical. 
The  so-called  Modern  View  regards  itself  as  the  substi- 
tuting of  something  better  for  the  old  tradition  concern- 
ing the  Scriptures  and  theolog}^  So  regarded,  it  seems 
to  me  a  failure ;  but  it  was  greatly  needed  as  a  protest 
against  widely  prevalent  mechanical  ways  of  holding  that 
same  old  tradition. 

Many  of  the  advocates  of  the  newer  tradition  claim 
that  their  critical  view  has  made  the  Bible  a  new  book  to 
What  Makes  them — immeasurably  richer  than  it  was 

the  Bible  a  before,  and  spiritually  more  nourishing. 

•'  New  Book  "  ?  There  Is  no  reason  for  questioning  the 
sincerity  or  the  truth  of  this  statement,  though  In  esti- 
mating the  fact  stated  we  should  place  it  alongside  of 
other  facts.  If  these  opinions  concerning  the  Bible  have 
led  some  to  find  greater  spiritual  excellence  In  It,  they 


The  Existing  Situation  49 

have  led  others,  probably  a  much  larger  number,  to  ship- 
wreck of  faith ;  while  still  others,  doubtless  a  majority  of 
the  adherents  of  the  new  tradition,  regard  the  Bible  as 
a  mass  of  folklore  and  other  literary  remains,  on  the 
whole  of  high  quality,  which  may  safely  for  the  present 
be  allowed  to  retain  the  conventional  precedence  to  which 
it  has  attained  as  the  sacred  book  of  the  religion  of 
Jehovah.  Those  to  whom  the  prevailing  type  of  criti- 
cism has  made  the  Bible  spiritually  a  richer  book  cannot 
be  relatively  very  numerous.  In  most  of  the  cases  it  will 
be  found  that  they  were  brought  up  on  the  old-fashioned 
views,  and  that  they  had  attained  to  certain  stages  of 
spiritual  experience  before  the  change  of  view  came ;  and 
almost  uniformly  it  will  be  found  that  the  views  from 
which  they  changed  were  of  the  ultra-mechanical  sort. 
The  change  that  came  to  them  was  a  mental  awakening, 
as  well  as  the  accepting  of  a  new  opinion ;  the  higher  ap- 
preciation of  the  Bible  was  not  due  to  the  new  opinion, 
but  to  the  mental  awakening  that  accompanied  it. 

What  we  need  is  a  critical  view  that  shall  succeed 
where  the  so-called  Modern  View  has  failed.  The  Mod- 
ern View  attempts  to  discredit  the  older 

C  'ti    IV  tradition   without  having  anything  ade- 

quate to  offer  as  a  substitute  for  it; 
what  it  offers  would  constitute  a  change  for  the  worse, 
and  not  for  the  better.  But  something  is  needed  besides 
a  defense  of  the  conservative  position  in  the  sense  of  the 
confuting  of  the  arguments  of  those  who  assail  it.  Plenty 
of  such  defenses  have  been  made,  and  some  of  them  are 
impregnable.  The  thing  needed  is  such  a  view  as  shall 
retain  in  full  the  truths  of  the  older  tradition,  correcting 


50  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

and  supplementing  that  tradition  when  necessary,  pre- 
senting it  from  the  changed  point  of  view  of  modern 
thinking,  and  so  presenting  it  as  to  arouse  mental  activ- 
ity, substituting  actual  and  vital  study  for  the  mere 
lethargic  acceptance  of  a  tradition — in  short,  a  con- 
structive presentation  of  it,  and  the  live  study  of  the 
Bible  in  the  light  thus  afforded. 


CHAPTER  V 


VIEWS  THAT  ARE  HELD  CONCERNING  THE  BIBLE 

Introduction:  Average  views.  Outline  of  treatment.  I.  The 
hexateuch.  i.  The  question  of  the  literary  unit.  2.  The 
question  of  composite  authorship.  3.  Theories  of  composite 
authorship.  J,  E,  D,  P,  R.  Criteria,  Estimate.  4.  The 
question  as  to  work  done  by  Ezra  and  his  associates.  5.  The 
question  of  post-Mosaic  elements.  Older  tradition.  Newer 
tradition.  Instances,  and  the  results  from  studying  them. 
6.  Questions  of  date  and  authorship.  The  older  tradition  as 
intelligently  understood.  The  newer  traditions.  Disproof  of 
them.  By  testimony.  By  literary  phenomena.  By  post-Mosaic 
elements.  7.  The  question  of  historical  truthfulness.  The 
older  tradition.  The  newer  tradition.  Legend  and  fabrica- 
tion. Relative  historicity.  Historical  nucleus.  II.  The  rest 
of  the  Scriptures:  Their  testimony,  and  how  they  are 
treated,  i.  The  rest  of  the  Old  Testament.  Judges  and 
Samuel.  Kings  and  other  books.  Hosea  for  example.  The 
testimony,  how  disposed  of.  2.  The  New  Testament.  Con- 
clusion :  The  importance  of  a  clear  understanding  of  the 
case.    Literature. 

No  two  genuinely  thoughtful  persons  hold  precisely 
the  same  views  concerning  the  Scriptures.  The  men  who 
accept  the  older  tradition  diflfer  among  themselves,  and 
the  agnostic  and  cryptoagnostic  theories  differ  according 
to  the  minds  that  hold  them,  and  are  constantly  changing. 
It  is  possible,  however,  to  give  an  average  outline  that 
shall  indicate  the  nature  of  the  more  important  differ- 
ences of  opinion. 

The  most  convenient  and  intelligible  form  for  such  an 
outline  is  one  that  is  derived  quite  as  much  from  the  his- 
tory of  the  discussion  as  from  the  nature  of  the  subject 

51 


52  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

discussed.    Let  the  outline  start  with  the  first  six  books 
of  the  Bible  and  then  extend  to  the  other  books. 

I.  In  the  first  place,  take  up  certain  points  concerning 
the  first  six  books  of  the  Bible. 

First,  consider  the  question  of  the  literary  unit.     The 

older  tradition  held,  or  at  least  negatively  assumed,  that 

the  first  five  books  are  a  literary  work 

Pentateuch  or    ^     themselves,   the   pentateuch,   Joshua 

Hexateuch?  /.  ,.„        '       .       ^  ,      \i    ,. 

bemg  a  diiierent  literary  work.    JNIothmg 

in  the  older  views  depended  upon  this ;  it  was"  simply 

taken  for  granted  without  much  examination.     The  men 

of   the  newer  traditions   commonly  hold,  on   the   other 

hand,  that  the  proper  literary  unit  is  the  first  six  books, 

the  hexateuch,  the  six  having  been  compiled  from  the 

same  documents.     Whether  or  no  we  accept  the  reason 

assigned,  the  hexateuch  is  certainly  the  literary  unit.     It 

has  one  subject,  the  history  of  Israel  in  the  formative 

period.     It  has   one  point  of   view.     The  narrative  in 

Joshua  is  directly  continuous  with  that  in  Numbers  and 

Deuteronomy,  while  it  is  separated  from  that  of  Judges 

by  certain  summarizing  and  explanatory  sections  which 

constitute   an   unmistakable    literary  break  between  the 

two  books. 

Second,  consider  in  general  the  question  of  what  is 

called   composite    authorship.      The   older   tradition    has 

held,    or   negatively    assumed,    that    the 

Composite        pentateuch  is  mainly  a  continuous  com- 
Authorship  ...  ,  ,  ,  ,      . 

position  by  one  author,  though  admit- 
ting that  he  incorporated  earlier  pieces  of  writing.  Noth- 
ing important  depended  on  this.  It  was  simply  a  hasty 
interpretation  of  a  matter  in  which  disputes  had  not  yet 


Views  Concerning  the  Bible  53 

arisen  to  lead  men  to  careful  study.  The  newer  tradition 
is  correct  in  observing  that  the  man  or  men  who  gave 
the  hexateuch  its  present  literary  form  had  in  their  pos- 
session a  mass  of  written  poems,  addresses,  legal  docu- 
ments, narratives,  and  composed  the  work  largely  by  the 
process  of  putting  these  papers  together.  Observing  the 
phenomena  presented  by  the  hexateuch,  one  ought  to 
recognize  this,  even  if  he  holds  that  Moses  was  both  the 
writer  of  all  the  parts  of  the  pentateuch  that  were  thus 
put  together,  and  also  the  man  who  put  the  parts  together. 

Third,  the  case  is  different  in  the  matter  of  particular 
theories  of  composite  authorship.  Many  men  are  not 
content  with  affirming  composite  author- 
AlrthTrlh^^  ship  in  general ;  they  attempt  the  solu- 
tion of  the  problem  of  the  sources.  No 
two  of  the  solutions  are  alike,  and  for  good  reason;  in 
the  nature  of  the  case  they  are  largely  guesswork.  The 
men  of  the  so-called  Modern  View  present,  however,  a 
fairly  general  agreement  as  to  certain  outlines. 

They  hold  that  the  hexateuch  was  compiled  mainly 
from  four  earlier  documents,  each  of  them  the  product  of 
still  earlier  compiling  and  rewriting.  One  was  a  Judahite 
document,  designated  by  many  scholars  as  J,  using  pre- 
vailingly the  name  Jehovah.  A  second  was  E,  an  Eph- 
raimite  document,  prevailingly  speaking  of  God  as 
Elohim.  In  process  of  time  some  one  put  these  two  to- 
gether, forming  JE,  which  included  most  of  the  legisla- 
tion connected  with  the  ten  commandments,  together 
with  narratives  therewith  affiliated.  In  the  course  of  cen- 
turies, they  say,  a  third  series  was  produced,  the  Deuter- 
onomic  laws  and  addresses,  D  being  the  symbol  for  these, 


54  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

and  JED  the  symbol  for  the  combination  of  these  with 
JE.  The  fourth  series,  called  P,  is  made  up  of  the 
priestly  laws  and  narratives.  The  various  layers  in  each 
series  may  be  designated  as  J\  J-,  J•^  etc.,  or  P^,  P-,  P^, 
etc.  The  Redactor  or  redactors  who  put  the  several 
writings  together,  thus  forming  the  hexateuch,  are  desig- 
nated by  R,  and  those  who  made  earlier  combinations  of 
the  parts  are  designated  by  R  with  limiting  symbols. 

This  partition  is  based  in  part  on  theories  of  religion 
and  of  history,  and  in  part  on  linguistic  and  literary  phe- 
nomena,  the  latter  being  avowedly   re- 

ntenao^  guarded   as   subordinate.     Long  lists   of 

Composition  .       .     ,  ,  ,  .  .       . 

criteria  have  been  made  out  for  each  of 

the  alleged  documents.  If,  however,  you  divide  the  nar- 
rative into  natural  sections,  the  criteria  will  directly  apply 
to  not  more,  probably,  than  ten  percent  of  the  sections; 
in  all  the  others  the  criteria  will  be  inconsistent,  and  it 
is  only  by  conjectural  changes  of  the  text,  or  by  the  use 
of  harmonizing  hypotheses,  or  by  other  processes,  often 
drastic,  that  any  critic  reaches  plausible  results. 

The  scholars  who  have  made  these  analyses  deserve  to 
be  admired  for  their  industry  and  their  acuteness,  and 
they  have  done  some  valuable  study  of  Bible  phenomena ; 
but  their  inductions  are  precarious,  and  their  deductions 
are  at  every  point  affected  by  the  logical  vice  of  the  draw- 
ing of  conclusions  from  particular  premises  only.  It  is 
no  wonder  that  new  theories  of  partition  are  constantly 
emerging. 

A  fourth  point  concerns  the  work  done,  or  supposed 
to  have  been  done,  on  the  hexateuch  by  Ezra  and  his  as- 
sociates.   Different  writers  of  the  older  school  provision- 


Views  Concerning  the  Bible  55 

ally   and  uncertainly  attribute  to  Ezra  a  good  deal  of 

work  of  this  kind — work  in  preserving  and  transmitting 

the  text,  and  work  in  revising  the  text, 

Ezra  an    His      gome  of  them  Sfoingf  so  far  as  to  speak  of 

Associates  ^  ,  ,  ,  r     ,       i 

iLzra  as  the  second  author  of  the  law, 

dividing  the  honors  of  the  authorship  with  Moses.  Ac- 
cording to  the  so-called  Modern  View,  Ezra  and  his 
associates  are  the  original  authors  of  more  than  half  of 
the  contents  of  the  hexateuch,  and  are  the  proper  authors 
of  the  hexateuch  itself  in  its  present  form. 

The  recent  discoveries  of  papyri  in  Egypt  go  far  in  con- 
firmation of  the  traditions  which  attribute  to  Ezra  and 
his  associates  important  work  in  the  preservation  and 
transmission  of  the  hexateuch  and  the  other  Old  Testa- 
ment books  (see  Chapter  XVIII).  But  the  truest 
view  is  the  one  which  attributes  the  least  to  Ezra  and  his 
associates  in  the  matter  of  making  changes  in  the  con- 
tents or  the  literary  form  of  the  hexateuch. 

A  fifth  point  concerns  the  post-Mosaic  elements  in  the 
hexateuch.  The  older  tradition  has  not  denied  the  exist- 
ence of  such  elements.     Some  persons 

ost-    osaic     1^        accounted  for  some  of  the  passages 
Elements  ,.     .  ^  ,  ,  i 

as  predictive.  Others  have  been  ac- 
counted for  as  scribal  changes  made  in  the  text.  In  the 
interest  of  the  doctrine  of  inspiration  some  of  the  older 
scholars  have  pointed  out  that  the  changes  may  have  been 
made  by  Samuel  or  by  Ezra  or  by  some  other  inspired 
person.  In  this  region  the  conclusions  reached  by  the 
older  scholars  were  not  always  impregnable. 

The  agnostic  or  cryptoagnostic  treatments  magnify  the 
post-Mosaic  incidents,  real  or  alleged,  and  assign  extrava- 


56  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

gantly  late  dates  for  some  of  them,  and  then  use  them  in 
proof  of  the  late  dates  which  they  allege  for  the  produc- 
tion of  the  various  parts  of  the  hexateuch. 

The  true  way  to  deal  with  these  phenomena  is  to  study 
them  carefully.  For  example,  the  hexateuch  mentions 
that  certain  men  captured  Laish,  or 
Instances  Leshem,  and  named  it  Dan,  and  this 
place  Dan  is  mentioned  elsewhere  in  the 
hexateuch  (Josh.  19  :  47;  Deut.  34  :  i ;  Gen.  14  :  14). 
This  could  not  have  been  written  till  after  the  event  took 
place,  and  that  was  a  good  while  after  the  death  of  Moses 
and  Joshua  (Judg.  18  :  29).  But  it  was  within  the  life- 
time of  Phinehas,  the  grandnephew  of  Moses  (Judg. 
20  :  28),  who  was  associated  with  Moses  in  public  affairs 
(Num.  25  :  7  ff. ;  31  :  6).  Men  of  the  age  of  Phinehas 
may  well  have  been  the  literary  executors  of  Moses. 

As  another  instance,  until  some  time  after  the  death  of 
Joshua  there  was  a  Canaanite  city  called  Luz,  the  name 
Bethel  being  applied  to  the  Abrahamic  place  of  worship  in 
the  vicinity  (Judg.  i  :  23;  Gen.  28  :  19;  35  :  6;  48  :  3; 
Josh.  16  :  2;  18  :  13).  But  certain  narratives  in  Genesis 
and  Joshua  use  the  name  Bethel  without  comment,  as  if  it 
were  already  the  accepted  name  of  the  city  {e.  g.,  Gen. 
12  :  8;  13  :  3;  Josh.  8  :  9,  etc.).  Different  explanations 
have  been  offered,  but  in  any  case  there  is  here  nothing 
to  indicate  a  point  of  view  later  than  that  of  the  con- 
temporaries of  Phinehas. 

In  the  forty-ninth  chapter  of  Genesis  there  is  put  into 
the  mouth  of  Jacob  a  poem,  in  which  some  of  the  tribes 
are  alluded  to  geographically,  as  in  the  regions  which 
they  occupied  after  the  conquest  under  Joshua.     If  one 


Views  Concei'-fimg  the  Bible  57 

assumes  that  this  is  not  superhuman  prediction,  he  must 
regard  it  as  written  not  less  than  two  or  three  decades 
after  the  death  of  Moses,  but  there  is  nothing  in  the 
phenomena  to  indicate  a  date  much  later  than  that. 

In  Genesis  (17  :  6,  16;  35  :  11)  it  is  promised  that 
kings  shall  descend  from  Abraham  and  Sarah  and  Israel. 
In  Deuteronomy  it  is  impHed  (17  :  14,  15;  28  :  36)  that 
Israel  will  some  time  have  a  king.  In  Genesis  (36  :  31) 
kings  are  spoken  of  as  reigning  in  Edom  "before  there 
reigned  any  king  over  the  children  of  Israel."  This  pas- 
sage is  often  quoted  as  implying  that  there  were  kings  in 
Israel  before  it  was  written,  but  that  is  not  a  necessary 
implication.  If  the  author  was  a  contemporary  of  Moses 
he  would  be  interested  in  the  fact  that  the  fulfilling  of 
this  part  of  the  promise  had  already  begun  in  the  Edomite 
branch  of  Abraham's  family,  although  it  had  not  yet 
begun  in  the  Israelite  branch ;  and  he  would  use  language 
accordingly. 

The  last  chapter  of  Deuteronomy  gives  an  account  of 
the  death  of  Moses,  and  says:  ''There  hath  not  arisen 
a  prophet  since  in  Israel  like  unto  Moses."  Men  say 
that  whoever  wrote  tbis  must  have  been  looking  back 
over  an  interval  of  many  centuries  to  the  times  of  Moses. 
There  is  no  certainty  in  this  inference.  An  interval  of  a 
few  decades  is  sufficient  to  account  for  the  writer's  using 
this  expression.  Forty  years  after  the  death  of  Abraham 
Lincoln  people  were  already  saying  that  we  have  not 
since  had  an  American  statesman  like  him.  Less  than 
forty  years  after  the  deaths  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher  and 
John  B.  Gough  men  were  saying  that  there  have  arisen 
since  no  English-speaking  orators  like  them. 


58  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

There  are  a  large  number  of  these  instances.  They 
show  beyond  a  doubt  that  Hterary  work  was  done  on  the 
hexateuch  after  the  death  of  Moses  and  of  Joshua.  There 
are  no  clear  instances  later  than  a  few  decades  after  the 
death  of  Moses.  It  is  true  that  some  men  allege  later 
instances;  but  in  all  the  alleged  later  instances  it  will  be 
found  that  the  alleged  lateness  of  the  instance  is  a  mat- 
ter of  inference  from  the  theory  to  be  proved,  and  not  a 
fact  based  on  evidence. 

A  sixth  point  concerns  questions  of  date  and  author- 
ship.   According  to  the  older  tradition  Moses  is  the  au- 
Mosaic  ^^°^  ^^  ^^^  pentateuch,  and  Joshua  of 

Authorship:  the  sixth  book,  with  some  difference  of 
Its  Meaning^  opinion  concerning  Joshua.  Many  have 
understood  this  in  a  meaning  that  is  mechanical  and  un- 
tenable, but  that  understanding  of  it  is  not  a  necessary 
part  of  the  tradition.  To  understand  the  matter  we 
should  have  in  mind  the  conditions.  If  Moses  wrote  such 
literature  as  this,  he  probably  did  it  in  the  way  in  which 
other  busy  public  men  do  similar  work — employing  not 
amanuenses  only,  but  assistants  and  secretaries;  gather- 
ing older  documents;  causing  reports  and  papers  to  be 
drawn  up  by  heads  of  departments  and  others;  more 
likely  than  not  leaving  a  mass  of  written  matter  to  be 
edited  and  supplemented  after  his  death.  If  he  did  this, 
he  would  still  be  the  proper  author  of  the  work,  since  he 
would  be  the  person  distinctively  responsible  for  its  exist- 
ence as  literature ;  though  there  would  be  a  great  diflfer- 
ence  between  this  and  writing  as  a  scholar  in  a  closet 
writes.  That  Moses  was  in  the  sense  thus  indicated  the 
author  of  the  hexateuch,  with  Joshua   and   others   for 


Views  Concernmg  the  Bible  59 

coadjutors,  is  the  conclusion  justified  by  the  evidence  in 
the  case. 

In  conflict  with  this  the  agnostic  and  cryptoagnostic 
criticism  teaches  that  it  is  uncertain  how  much  Moses  had 

to  do  with  even  the  early  history  and 
Dates  Assigned  by  legislation,  to  say  nothing  of  written 
Modern  View  •    ,  n-, 

materials.      The   most   common   opmion 

of  this  class  is  that  J  and  E  were  compiled,  one  after  the 
other,  about  the  time  of  the  prophet  Amos,  several  cen- 
turies after  Moses,  out  of  traditions  which  had  accumu- 
lated at  Bethel,  Dan,  Shechem,  Hebron,  Beersheba,  and 
other  sanctuaries ;  that  the  nucleus  of  D  was  the  book 
of  the  law  found  in  the  temple  in  Josiah's  time,  B.  C.  621, 
our  present  book  of  Deuteronomy  having  been  later  built 
up  around  this  nucleus ;  that  the  several  strata  of  P 
were  written  still  later,  at  different  times,  mostly  after 
the  exile ;  that  the  hexateuch  as  a  whole  was  produced 
in  the  times  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  about  400  B.  C, 
though  parts  of  it  are  still  later.  These  are  the  moderate 
views  of  the  matter.  There  is  a  more  extreme  agnosti- 
cism which  regards  Moses  as  a  mere  myth. 

There  are  many  considerations  which  conclusively  dis- 
prove all  these  theories  of  the  extremely  late  date  of  the 
several  parts  of  the  hexateuch.  Look  briefly  at  three  of 
these  considerations. 

First,  there  is  a  large  body  of  testimony  in  the  case, 

and  it  is  all  against  these  theories.  Nearly 
Testimony        all  the  contents  of  the  last  four  books 

of  the  pentateuch  either  are  narratives 
in  which  Moses  speaks  in  the  first  person,  or  else 
claim  either  to  have  been  written  by  Moses  or  uttered 


6o  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

by  Moses  or  to  be  messages  given  by  Deity  to  Moses. 
The  books  of  Judges  and  First  and  Second  Samuel,  as 
we  have  them,  presuppose  all  parts  of  the  hexateuch,  the 
D  and  P  parts  as  well  as  the  J  and  E  parts,  and  testify 
that  the  hexateuchal  narrative  and  legislation  was  then  in 
existence  and  claimed  obedience  from  Israel.  Even  the 
men  of  the  Modern  View,  if  well  informed,  no  longer 
deny  this.  In  the  Hebrew  text  of  the  Polychrome  Bible 
more  than  six  percent  of  the  book  of  Judges  is  printed 
in  green,  as  having  the  characteristics  of  D,  and  about 
fifteen  percent  in  yellow,  as  having  the  characteristics 
of  P.  In  dozens  of  places  the  books  of  Kings  mention  or 
otherwise  presuppose  the  contents  of  the  hexateuch,  the 
D  and  P  parts  as  well  as  the  J  and  E  parts,  referring  the 
legislation  to  Moses,  and  speaking  of  its  use  in  Israel 
from  the  time  of  David  on.  Moses  and  the  law  and  the 
specific  contents  of  the  hexateuch  are  similarly  men- 
tioned, or  otherwise  presupposed,  in  nearly  every  one  of 
the  major  and  minor  prophets,  and  in  the  Psalms,  and  in 
the  wisdom  books,  and  in  other  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. And  the  testimony  of  Jesus  and  his  disciples  and 
their  opposers,  in  the  New  Testament,  is  abundant  and 
unmistakable.  We  shall  presently  see  how  the  men  of 
the  Modern  View  attempt  to  break  the  force  of  this  tes- 
timony. For  the  present  it  is  sufficient  to  note  that  none 
of  them  dispute  the  existence  of  the  testimony,  nor  its 
abundance,  nor  the  fact  that  it  purports  to  be  continuous 
from  the  time  of  Moses,  nor  the  explicitness  with  which 
it  assigns  the  authorship  of  the  hexateuch  to  the  time 
of  Moses  and  his  associates. 

Again,  the  testimony  is  confirmed  by  the  literary  phe- 


Views  Concerning  the  Bible  6i 

nomena  in  the  writings.  It  would  take  a  series  of  vol- 
umes to  discuss  these  fully,  but  look  at  a  single  group 

of  facts  which  is  by  itself  well-nigh  con- 
Babylonian  and    ^j^^.^^^     ^^^  ^^  ^^^  -g.^j^  ^j^^^  j^^l 

Persian  Marks  ^  ,  •, 

with  the  last  decades  before  the  exile  ex- 
hibit marks  of  Babylonian  influence — Babylonian  words, 
for  example,  and  the  mention  of  contemporaneous  Baby- 
lonian persons  and  events  and  usages.     The  parts  that 
deal  with  post-exilian  events  are  full  of  similar  Persian 
marks.     The   instances   are   hundreds   in   number;   they 
crop  out  on  nearly  every  page.    There  is  no  dispute  about 
them.     You  may  find  convenient  summaries  of  instances 
in  Driver's   Introduction,   in  its   treatment  of   the   later 
books.     Now,  if  the  alleged  D  and  P  parts  of  the  hexa- 
teuch  had  been  produced,  as  the  Modern  View  asserts 
that  they  were,  in  these  Babylonian  and  Persian  times, 
they  would  certainly  have  been  marked  with  these  same 
Babylonian  or  Persian  peculiarities ;  but  they  are  not  so 
marked,    even   in   the    slightest    degree.      The   inference 
against  their  having  been  produced  in  these  late  times  is 
really  so  strong  that  one  has  no  right  to  doubt. 

Yet,  again,  we  have  seen  that  whoever  wrote  up  the 
hexateuchal   records — some   of   them   records   of   events 
centuries    before     Moses — was    in    the 
Post-Mosaic      j^^^j^    1  ^£  explanation  or  other- 

Marks  .  \.  .       ..  .     .        , 

wise,    of.  occasionally    mentioning   later 

events.  There  are  a  good  many  instances  of  this  kind. 
But  this  usage  has  a  limit  of  time ;  there  are  no  clear 
instances  of  it  later  than  a  few  decades  after  Moses. 
There  is  just  one  reasonable  explanation  of  this.  The 
writer  connected  ancient  events  with  recent  events  up  to 


62  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

his  own  time;  the  Hmit  of  date  for  this  habit  indicates 
the  time  when  the  hexateuch  was  completed. 

These  reasons  are  intelHgible.  They  do  not  depend  on 
hairspHtting  distinctions  made  by  experts.  They  settle 
the  question,  even  if  there  were  no  other  considerations 
bearing  on  it.  A  more  complete  induction  would  result 
in  reinforcing  these  reasons  by  a  multitude  of  others. 

A  final  point  concerns  the  truthfulness  of  the  hexa- 
teuch in  matters  of  fact. 

The  older  tradition  affirms  that  the  hexateuchal  legis- 
lation is  genuinely  Mosaic,  and  that  the  narrative  as  a 
whole  is  historical  and  trustworthy.     If 

Is  It  History?  it  recognizes  possible  elements  of  alle- 
gory or  of  personalized  history,  it  does 
this  within  limits  that  leave  untouched  the  veraciousness 
of  the  complete  account.  The  Modern  View,  on  the 
other  hand,  ranges  from  that  of  the  men  who  count 
Moses  a  myth  to  that  of  the  men  who  concede  to  him  a 
limited  direct  influence  in  the  legislation,  and  a  more 
extended  indirect  influence ;  it  is  not  hospitable,  how- 
ever, to  the  idea  that  he  gave  any  of  the  legislation  in 
the  form  in  which  it  now  exists. 

The  Modern  View  teaches  that  the  traditions  out  of 
which  J  and  E  were  compiled  were  largely  legendary; 
and  that  the  various  D  and  P  writings  are  mainly  fabri- 
cations, made  in  the  interest  of  a  religious  propaganda. 

At  this  point  note  carefully  a  distinction.  These  men 
do  not  teach  that  the  D  and  P  writings  are  avowedly 
religious  fiction,  parables,  stories  framed  for  religious 
teaching,  and  so  understood  from  the  first.  The  very 
different  thing  which  they  teach  is  this :  that  the  D  and  P 


Views  Concerning  the  Bible  6 


o 


writers  deliberately  published  what  purported  to  be  his- 
tory, but  that  this  alleged  history  was  largely  invented 
by  themselves  for  the  purpose  of  mak- 

r     egen    or     •       -^  appear,  falsely,  that  certain  relig- 
Fabncation  ?        .  .     .     . 

lous  ideas  and  practices  of  their  own  in- 
vention had  existed  from  ancient  times,  and  had  been 
handed  down  to  them. 

According  to  the  Modern  View,  the  J  and  E  writings 
in  the  hexateuch,  being  older  than  the  others,  come  nearer 
to  being  authentic  history.  This  does  not  mean  that  we 
have  a  right  to  accept  their  statements  as  fact ;  it  means 
that  if  we  had  these  writings  as  their  authors  wrote  them, 
we  should  know  from  them  not,  indeed,  the  true  ancient 
history  of  Israel,  nor  even  the  true  form  of  the  oldest 
Israelitish  legends,  but  the  form  in  which  these  legends 
were  current  in  Israel  in  the  eighth  century  before 
Qirist.  But  in  fact,  they  tell  us,  we  have  not  so  much 
as  this.  They  say  that  some  generations  after  J  and  E 
were  written  the  D  writers  changed  and  annotated  them, 
interpolating  into  them  a  new  set  of  religious  ideas ;  and 
some  generations  still  later  the  P  writers  repeated  the 
process.  What  we  have,  they  say,  is  the  ancient  legends 
so  reshaped  and  reset  as  to  make  them  teach  ideas  that 
are  less  ancient. 

They  do  not  say  that  all  this  entirely  excludes  all  his- 
torical elements  from  the  hexateuch.  It  must  be  the 
case,  they  say,  that  many  of  the  legends 

Nuc  eus        formed  themselves  on  a  nucleus  of  facts. 
of  Fact  T-»  ,  1  r     1 

But  the  general  consensus  of  the  men 

of  the  so-called  Modern  View  is  to  the  effect  that  the 

hexateuchal  narrative  is  untrue  in  the  outline  it  gives  of 


64  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

the  early  history  of  Israel,  untrue  in  its  accounts  of  the 
most  important  events,  generally  untrustworthy  in  de- 
tails, and  especially  untrue  in  what  it  says  of  the  begin- 
nings of  the  religion  of  Jehovah.  They  say,  for  example, 
that  there  was  no  such  sojourn  in  Egypt,  no  such  exodus, 
no  such  conquest  of  Canaan,  and  especially  no  such  taber- 
nacle worship,  as  the  hexateuch  describes.  Out  of  the 
scantiest  and  flimsiest  materials  they  reconstruct  the  his- 
tory, making  it  utterly  different  from  that  outlined  in  the 
hexateuch. 

The  views  thus  sketched  are  not  those  of  extremists 
only,  but  are  the  usual  teachings  in  the  current  theories 
concerning  the  hexateuch.  Of  course  any  one  who  re- 
gards the  Scriptures  as  ordinarily  truthful  has  to  re- 
pudiate them. 

II.  If  a  person  accepts  such  views  as  these  concerning 
the  hexateuch,  that  necessarily  affects  his  view  of  all 
parts  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments. 

When  he  finds,  for  example,  that  the  books  of  Judges 
and  of  First  and   Second   Samuel  presuppose  the   con- 
tents of  the  hexateuch,  and  affirm  that 
Judges  and       these   were   current  in   Israel   from   the 
Samuel  ^  t,  ,r  i  i  i  • 

time  of  Moses,  he  must  make  some  dis- 
posal of  this  testimony.  The  older  tradition  does  this 
easily,  saying  that  it  proves  that  the  literary  contents  of 
'the  hexateuch  were  in  existence  in  the  times  of  the 
Judges.  Formerly  some  of  the  advocates  of  the  newer 
tradition  denied  or  minimized  the  fact  that  Judges  and 
Samuel  presuppose  the  hexateuch ;  but  this  position  they 
have  been  compelled  to  abandon.  The  explanation  they 
now  give  is  to  the  effect  that  Judges  and  Samuel  were 


Views  Concerning  the  Bible  65 

produced  in  much  the  same  way  as  the  hexateuch,  and 
perhaps  by  the  same  persons;  that  the  earher  strata  of 
these  books  were  compiled  by  J  writers  and  E  writers, 
from  traditions,  largely  legendary,  and  that  these  com- 
pilations were  afterward  changed  and  annotated  by  D 
writers  and  P  writers,  who  falsified  the  account  in  order 
to  make  it  appear  that  their  own  religious  usages  were 
ancient. 

They  deal  in  the  same  way  with  the  other  parts  of  the 

testimony.     When   the   books   of    Kings   testify   to   the 

existence  and  the  Mosaic  origin  of  the 

Kings  and  hexateuchal  laws  and  facts,  the  Modern 

Other  Books        ,.-1 

View  has  no  reply  to  make  except  by 

asserting  that  the  testimonies  are  fabrications  by  the  D 

and   P   writers.     When  it  appears  that  each  prophetic 

book  presupposes  the  hexateuch,  presupposes  the  D  and 

the  P  parts  as  well  as  the  J  and  the  E  parts,  presupposes 

them  as   authoritative   in   Israel   at   the   time   when  the 

prophet  lived,  the  Modern  View  can  reply  only  by  saying 

that  the  prophetic  book  in  question  originated  still  later 

than  the  hexateuch ;  or  by  saying  that  it  has  been  changed 

and  annotated  in  order  to  make  it  teach  the  D  or  P  ideas. 

Take  the  book  of  Hosea  for  example.     As  it  stands  it 

purports  to  be  a  record  of  prophecies  uttered  in  northern 

Israel   between   the  last  years   of  Jero- 

Hosea.  for       ^^^^^  jj  ^^^  ^^^  downfall  of  Samaria. 

Example  _  „     ,  r     ,       < 

It  presupposes  all  the  parts  of  the  hexa- 
teuch, particularly  denounces  the  violation  of  the  D  legis- 
lation in  the  case  of  the  northern  sanctuaries,  advocates 
the  reunion  of  the  two  kingdoms  under  the  dynasty  of 
David.     In  all  this  it  is  clear  and  consistent,  and  is  sup- 


66  Reasonable  Biblical  Criiicism 

ported  by  all  that  we  know  concerning  the  times,  either 
from  the  Scriptures  or  from  the  Assyrian  records.  If  one 
believes  this  testimony  he  must  believe  that  the  hexa- 
teuch  was  already  ancient  in  the  time  of  Hosea.  In  order 
to  avoid  this  conclusion  the  author  of  one  of  the  articles 
on  Hosea  in  the  new  Schaff-Herzog  Encyclopedia  says 
that  the  first  three  chapters  of  Hosea,  and  forty  percent 
of  the  contents  of  the  remaining  chapters,  are  made  up 
''of  presumable  additions."  This  author  treats  Hosea 
just  as  do  the  other  authors  of  the  school  to  which  he 
belongs.  And  the  case  of  Hosea  is  not  exceptional,  but 
typical.  Every  section  of  Isaiah  and  all  the  ostensibly 
pre-exilian  minor  prophets  are  subjected  to  the  same 
treatment. 

Similar  statements  might  be  made  concerning  the  rest 

of  the  Old  Testament  books.    They  presuppose  the  hexa- 

teuch ;  some  of  them  are  saturated  with 

The  Testimony:   ^^^  presupposition  of   it.     Where   their 

How  Treated  ^  .  .  .    .  ,  i        -, 

presupposition  of   it  extends  to  details, 

they  almost  invariably  presuppose  all  the  parts  of  it.  The 
persons  who  testify  in  these  writings  lived  at  all  dates 
from  the  times  of  the  judges  on.  They  testify  that  hexa- 
teuchal  precepts  were  binding  in  Israel  from  the  time  of 
Moses,  giving  details  generation  by  generation  for  a 
large  part  of  that  time.  The  only  way  of  breaking  the 
force  of  the  testimony  is  by  discrediting  the  Bible  char- 
acters and  the  Bible  authors  who  give  the  testimony.  The 
way  in  which  men  actually  try  to  break  the  force  of  the 
testimony  is  by  saying  that  the  earlier  of  these  witnesses 
were  incompetent  to  distinguish  between  legend  and  his- 
tory,  while  the  later  witnesses  deliberately  and  by  the 


Views  Concerning  the  Bible  67 

wholesale  falsified  the  record  in  order  to  make  it  teach  the 
ideas  which  they  thought  it  ought  to  teach. 

Agnostic  or  cryptoagnostic  criticism  cannot  and  does 
not  confine  itself  to  the  Old  Testament,  leaving  the  New 
untouched.  It  enters  the  New  Testament  region  in  two 
ways — first,  in  the  way  of  discrediting  the  New  Testament 
as  evidence  concerning  the  Old  Testament;  and  second, 
in  the  way  of  applying  to  the  New  Testament  the  same 
destructive  treatment  as  to  the  Old. 

The  New  Testament  teaching  throughout  bases  itself 
upon  the  Old  Testament.  Take  a  printed  New  Testament 
Hovr  the  ^"<^  ^^ip  from  it  all  the  quotations  from 

New  Testament  the  Scriptures,  and  all  the  allusions  to 
is  Involved  them,    and    all    the    mention    of    Old 

Testament  events  and  persons,  and  you  will  perhaps  not 
have  an  uncut  leaf  left ;  a  large  part  of  your  printed  New 
Testament  will  be  in  tatters.  Jesus  and  his  followers  and 
their  opponents  habitually  refer  to  the  Old  Testament, 
and  base  their  teachings  upon  it.  Their  testimony  con- 
cerning the  Scriptures,  and  concerning  Moses  and  David 
and  Isaiah  and  other  scriptural  authors  and  books,  is 
abundant  and  explicit.  It  is  impossible  to  discredit  the 
Old  Testament  without  discrediting  Jesus  and  his  con- 
temporaries. 

Further,  he  who  would  be  consistent  must  apply  to 
the  Gospels  and  Epistles  the  same  critical  methods  which 
he  applies  to  the  hexateuch  and  the  prophets.  Plenty  of 
men  have  done  this,  and  are  doing  it,  and  the  results  are 
as  discrediting  in  the  case  of  the  New  Testament  as  in  that 
of  the  Old. 

If  a  person  wishes  to  be  intelligent  and  fair-minded  in 


68  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

regard  to  biblical  questions  it  is  of  the  utmost  import- 
ance that  he  take  the  pains  necessary  to  understand  the 
The  Need  differences  between  the  old  and  the  new 

for  a  Clear  traditions.  In  particular  one  needs  to 
Understanding  understand  firmly  the  fact  that  the  newer 
tradition  regards  the  men  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments as  habitually  untrue  in  their  statements  of  fact, 
and  that  this  is  the  one  essential  difference  between  the 
older  tradition  and  the  newer. 

Some  of  the  men  who  write  popular  editorials  and 
articles  will  deny  this,  and  will  accuse  the  person  who 
affirms  it  of  being  mossbacky  and  sour  and  prejudiced. 
But  the  scholarly  advocates  of  the  Modern  View  will  not 
join  in  this  accusation.  They  will  recognize,  I  think,  the 
fairness  of  the  statements  I  have  made.  They  will  at- 
tempt to  meet  the  difficulties  not  by  denying  the  facts 
which  I  have  stated,  but  by  arguing  that  human  religious 
instincts  naturally  express  themselves  in  folklore,  and 
that  the  religious  men  who  committed  forgeries  in  writ- 
ing the  Bible  belong  to  a  lower  stage  of  evolution  than 
we,  and  should  be  tried  by  a  different  ethical  standard; 
or  by  other  arguments  of  that  kind.  In  fact,  they  claim 
to  be  doing  a  great  service  along  the  line  of  the  historical 
truthfulness  of  the  Bible  by  distinguishing  the  relatively 
scanty  historical  elements  in  it  from  the  mass  of  unhis- 
torical  material  in  the  midst  of  which  they  are  found. 

If  there  are  advocates  of  the  Modern  View  who  do  not 
join  in  the  wholesale  depreciation  of  the  Scriptures  as 
repositories  of  fact,  the  men  of  the  older  tradition  should 
welcome  them  as  so  far  forth  on  the  right  side.  Our 
protest  is  not  so  much  against  the  so-called  Modern  View 


Views  Concerning  the  Bible  69 

as  held  by  this  or  that  scholar,  but  rather  against  the 
agnostic  or  cryptoagnostic  criticism  by  whomsoever  held ; 
against  such  a  theory  of  the  hexateuch  as  necessitates 
the  view  that  David  wrote  none  of  the  Psalms,  that 
Isaiah  and  several  other  books  are  mere  collections  of 
fragments,  that  a  woof  of  false  pretences  is  woven  into 
every  part  of  the  fabric  of  the  two  Testaments,  that 
Jesus  and  Paul  were  either  mentally  or  morally  so  incom- 
petent that  they  acquiesced  in  false  opinions  concerning 
the  Scriptures,  and  used  these  as  foundations  for  the 
gospel  they  preached. 

By  a  careful  study  of  Driver's  Introduction  one  may 
learn  the  ideas  held  by  the  more  conservative  men  of 

the  current  critical  schools  in  regard  to 
Literature        the   structure   and   date   and   authorship 

of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  and 
the  reasons  given  for  those  ideas.  The  different  volumes 
of  the  Polychrome  Bible  give  the  same  materials  ex- 
hibited in  color,  so  as  to  be  palpable  to  the  eye.  For  the 
hexateuch  a  similar  presentation  may  be  found,  with  the 
alleged  work  of  the  various  authors  differentiated  by 
different  type,  in  the  two  volumes  entitled  "The  Hexa- 
teuch," by  J.  E.  Carpenter  and  others ;  or  in  'The  Docu- 
ments of  the  Hexateuch,"  by  Addis ;  or  in  numerous 
other  works.  In  defense  of  the  older  views  read  the 
volumes  published  by  Professor  William  H.  Green,  of 
Princeton  Seminary,  in  particular  "The  Unity  of  the  Book 
of  Genesis,"  and  "The  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Penta- 
teuch." Or  read  Dr.  Orr's  "Problem  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment." Certain  volumes  and  articles  recently  published 
by  Mr.  Harold  Wiener  are  a  successful  attack  on  the 


70  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

critical  views  now  current.  The  books  of  reference  and 
their  bibliographical  lists  mention  other  books  and  articles 
by  the  hundred.  See  *'Does  Jesus  Teach  a  Doctrine  Con- 
cerning the  Scriptures?"  in  Bible  Student  and  Teacher, 
September,  1908,  and  "The  Old  Tradition  and  the  New," 
in  same,  January,  1904. 


CHAPTER  VI 

ACCEPTED  PRINCIPLES  OF  CRITICISM 

Introduction :  We  ought  to  accept  the  Modern  View  if  it  is 
true.  Uncritical  opinions  sometimes  legitimate.  Being 
critical  sometimes  obligatory,  i.  To  be  truly  critical  one 
must  think  for  himself.  Criticism  versus  authority.  Crypto- 
agnosticism  viciously  traditional.  Common  experience  as 
important  as  erudition.  2.  To  be  truly  critical  one  must 
avoid  undue  assumptions.  Prejudgments  to  be  excluded. 
Fundamental  assumptions  by  conservative  men  and  their 
opponents.  Their  differences  of  procedure.  Some  bad 
assumptions.  3.  Criticism  and  the  original  sources.  The 
object  under  observation.  Certain  wrong  processes.  4.  Criti- 
cism requires  that  we  attend  to  all  the  evidence.  The  whole 
and  the  parts  mutually  interpretative.  Ignoring  parts  of  the 
evidence.  Instances.  5.  Mention  of  additional  points.  Fav- 
orable presumptions.  Prefer  interpretations  that  are  popu- 
larly intelligible.  Use  all  the  faculties ;  avoid  merely 
mechanical  study.  Get  the  author's  point  of  view.  Induc- 
tion of  facts  versus  definition.  Sane  processes  of  filHng  in. 
Literature. 

The  views  presented  by  the  agnostic  or  cryptoagnostic 
criticism  are  startling  to  persons  who  have  been  brought 
up  with  old-fashioned  ideas  concerning  the  Bible, 
but  all  the  same  we  ought  to  accept  them,  provided  they 
are  true.  Their  advocates  claim  that  criticism  is  a 
science,  and  that  it  scientifically  determines  their  views 
to  be  correct.  Intelligent  persons  ought  to  decide  for 
themselves  concerning  this  claim,  and  ought  to  act  in 
accordance  with  the  decision. 

Within  limits  it  is  reasonable  to  believe  what  we  have 
been  taught  to  believe,  provided  we  find  it  confirmed  by 

71 


72  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

experiential  use.     The  larger  part  of  our  beliefs  have 
no  other  ground  than  this.     If  you  could  prohibit  beliefs 
of  this  character,  that  would  block  all 
giimae  human  thinking  and  activity.     A  person 

who  has  been  accustomed  to  think  that 
the  Scriptures  are  divinely  truthful,  and  who  finds  by 
experience  that  this  idea  is  beneficent  and  is  consistent 
with  the  course  of  things — such  a  person  is  reasonable  if 
he  continues  in  his  belief,  even  without  critically  examin- 
ing it.  The  same  would  be  true  of  the  person  who 
regards  the  Scriptures  as  untrustworthy,  provided  it 
were  also  true  that  experience  proves  his  view  to  be 
beneficent  and  consistent  with  the  course  of  things. 

Or  again,   if   a  person   has   investigated  and   reached 
conclusions  in  regard  to  the  truthfulness  and  the  author- 
ity of  the  Scriptures,  he  has  a  right  to 
a  1  ity  o         ^^^^  j^.^  further  studies  on  those  conclu- 
Opinions 

sions ;  with  the  understanding,  however, 

that  the  results  he  reaches  will  be  accepted  only  by  those 

who  agree  with  him  in  his  premises. 

For  many  persons,  however,  and  for  all  persons  when 

they  wish  to  convince  those  who  differ  with  them,  there 

is  need  to  go  deeper  than  to  what  we 

X    t^ r^  -^i    V     are  accustomed  to  believe.    This  process 
to  be  Critical  .  .  ... 

of  going  deeper  is  the  function  of  criti- 
cal study.  Scientific  criticism  has  its  principles  and 
methods,  and  in  regard  to  these  there  is  no  great  theoreti- 
cal difference  between  conservative  scholars  and  their 
modern  opponents.  Of  course,  this  brief  chapter 
makes  no  attempt  either  to  present  all  the  principles  of 
criticism   or   to   present    these   principles    systematically. 


Accepted  Principles  of  Criticism  73 

All  it  can  do  is  to  mention  a  few  points  by  way  of 
illustration. 

I.  To  be  truly  critical  one  must  think  for  himself.  No 
mere  acceptance  of  views  from  tradition,  whether  ancient 
or  contemporaneous,  can  be  genuinely  critical.  We  can- 
not be  rightly  critical  except  as  we  are  active  minded. 

To  state  this  in  another  way,  our  truly  critical  results 
are  those  which  we  reach  solely  on  the  basis  of  the  evi- 
dence in  the  case,  as  we  ourselves  have  examined  or 
otherwise  tested  it. 

Men  have  sometimes  been  uncritical  in  the  theories  of 
authority  which  they  have  accepted ;  for  example,  in  their 
theories  of  the  authority  of  the  church, 
^    j^  ^  the   authority   of   ancient   tradition,   the 

authority  of  the  Scriptures.  If  one  be- 
lieves the  church  or  the  tradition  or  the  Scriptures  as  a 
substitute  for  the  evidence  in  the  case,  not  using  his  own 
judgment,  that  is  uncritical ;  but  it  is  quite  another  thing 
if  he  believes  one  of  these  having  settled  it  in  his  mind 
that  this  is  the  best  evidence  accessible  to  him.  It  is  eter- 
nally and  indisputably  true  that  each  of  these,  according 
to  its  value  as  evidence,  is  entitled  to  exercise  authority 
over  the  human  mind.  The  person  who  does  not  submit 
to  the  authority  of  evidence  is  abnormal,  both  mentally 
and  morally.  The  true  Protestant  doctrine  concerning  the 
Bible  is  that  it  is  of  the  highest  possible  character  as 
evidence,  being  the  word  of  God.  If  any  Protestant 
teaches  that  we  ought  to  believe  the  Bible  against  the 
evidence  in  the  case,  that  shows  that  he  has  become  con- 
fused ;  what  he  means  Is  that  we  ought  to  believe  the 
Bible  against  such  other  evidence  as  there  may  be  in  the 


74  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

case ;  and  we  ought  to  believe  it  because,  being  the  word 
of  God,  it  is  stronger  evidence  than  the  other. 

This  position  that  the  human  mind  ought  to  be  free 
except  as  it  bows  to  evidence  is  the  position  of  conserva- 
tive Bible  scholars,  as  it  is  of  all  critically-minded  men, 
though  some  may  not  have  maintained  it  consistently. 

Some  conservative  scholars  have  doubtless  been  open 
to  the  criticism  that  they  have  depended  upon  authority 
as  a  cheap  way  of  settling  questions,  that  they  use  author- 
ity as  a  substitute  for  investigation.  Study  is  laborious 
and  sometimes  painful,  and  often  doubtful  in  its  results. 
It  is  sometimes  easier  to  accept  a  solution  that  is  handed 
to  us  ready  made.  This  is  not  necessarily  bad.  For  many 
uses  cheap  goods  are  preferable.  Inexpensive  commodi- 
ties may  be  as  good  of  their  kind  as  costly  commodities. 
But  there  are  cases  in  which  it  is  a  very  unworthy  prac- 
tice for  one  to  accept  a  teaching  on  authority  rather  than 
work  out  the  problem  for  himself. 

This  leads  up  to  the  point  that  one  of  the  most  promi- 
nent vices  of  the  current  cryptoagnostic  criticism  is  its 
Cryptoagnosticism  hidebound  traditionalism— its  helpless 
Viciously  dependence    on    authority    as    differing 

Traditional  from    evidence.     It    is    accustomed    to 

charge  this  against  its  opponents,  but  it  is  regularly  more 
guilty  than  even  the  extremest  men  among  its  opponents. 
The  authority  to  which  it  appeals  is  indeed  not  that  of 
ancient  tradition,  or  of  alleged  divine  revelation,  but  that 
of  contemporaneous  tradition,  that  of  alleged  experts,  that 
of  men  whom  it  is  fond  of  describing  as  "eminent  schol- 
ars." It  cites  the  opinions  of  these  instead  of  citing  the 
evidence.     Most  readers  of  this  chapter  are  in  shape  to 


Accepted  Principles  of  Criticism  75 

verify  this  statement  from  their  own  experience.  When 
people  argue  these  subjects  with  you  it  is  commonly  the 
old-fashioned  ones  who  ask  you  to  look  at  the  Bible  text, 
that  is,  to  look  at  the  object  under  investigation,  and  see 
for  yourself  that  they  are  right.  The  men  of  the  new 
tradition  regularly  tell  you  that  their  view  is  that  of 
eminent  scholars,  and  therefore  you  ought  not  to  have 
the  face  to  think  differently. 

Nothing  in  the  Roman  Catholic  church  is  more  objec- 
tionable to  Protestants  than  its  assumption  that  the  Bible 
is  not  for  Christian  people  except  as  officially  taught  them 
through  the  Church ;  but  this  is  a  trifling  assumption 
compared  with  that  which  demands  that  I  conform  the 
results  of  my  study  of  the  Scriptures  to  the  ideas  of 
certain  alleged  experts,  oh  penalty  of  being  condemned  as 
a  holder  of  obsolete  views. 

It  would  be  difficult  to  imagine  anything  more  mis- 
chievous than  this  notion  that  experts  in  scholarship  are 

the   only   persons    qualified   to   pass    on 
What  Constitutes   i-i,i-i  t^i  Ti_^i  1.1 

«  biblical  problems,     into  these  problems 

enter  questions  that  depend  on  one's 
knowledge  of  Hebrew  or  Syriac,  or  of  Oriental  antiqui- 
ties ;  but  into  them  also  enter  even  more  importantly  ques- 
tions of  practical  arithmetic,  questions  of  ordinary  living, 
questions  of  sentiment,  all  sorts  of  questions  of  human 
experience.  A  learned  man  who  lacks  religious  sympathy, 
and  lacks  shrewdness  and  experience  in  the  common- 
places of  human  living,  is  less  well  equipped  for  Bible 
study  than  the  unlearned  person  who  has  these  qualifi- 
cations. Not  the  experts  alone,  but  every  person,  should 
have  an  ambition  to  be  in  some  degree  a  Bible  critic. 


76  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

2.  To  be  truly  critical  one  must  avoid  undue  assump- 
tions. Genuine  critical  method  takes  nothing  for  granted 
save  the  object  under  observation,  the  observing  mind, 
the  evidence,  and  the  laws  of  evidence. 

When  you  enter  upon  a  critical  study  of  the  Bible,  it 

may  be  that  you  already  have  a  fixed  opinion  in  regard 

to   its   truthfulness   and   its   inspiration, 
Excluding  Our  ...  .  . 

p    .    ,.  an  opmion  m  which  you  either  accept  or 

reject  the  common  views  on  these  sub- 
jects. Critical  method  does  not  require  you  to  divest 
yourself  of  these  opinions  antecedent  to  your  examining 
the  evidence.  Persons  sometimes  misstate  the  law,  and 
say  that  it  requires  this,  but  such  a  requirement  would 
be  idiotic.  What  it  requires  is  that  you  perfectly  refuse 
to  admit  your  preconceived  opinion  as  a  part  of  the  case, 
that  you  exclude  it  from  among  the  premises  of  the  in- 
vestigation. 

Nothing  is  more  common  than  to  charge  conservative 
men    with    making   undue    assumptions    in    their    Bible 
Undue  Studies.    They  are  charged,  for  example. 

Fundamental  with  assuming  that  inspiration  renders- 
Assumptions  the  Scriptures  errorless,  instead  of  leav- 
ing this  question  to  be  settled  by  the  evidence,  and  with 
a  long  list  of  similar  sins  of  uncritical  procedure.  So  far 
forth  as  it  is  true  that  conservative  men  thus  beg  the 
questions  which  they  ought  to  prove,  they  are  inexcus- 
able. They  understand  as  well  as  their  opponents  that 
they  are  not  to  assume  beforehand  the  truthfulness  and 
the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  when  these  are  the 
questions  at  issue  in  the  investigation.  They  have  no 
right   to    assume    the    affirmative    any    more    than    their 


Accepted  Principles  of  Criticism  ']'j 

opponents  have  to  assume  the  negative.  The  scientific 
position  is  that  in  which  one  neither  affirms  nor  denies 
until  he  has  examined  the  evidence. 

Whatever  may  be  true  of  conservative  scholars,  the 

current     cryptoagnostic     criticism     is     characteristically 

marked  by  the  habit  of  false  fundamental 

Cryptoagnostic    assumptions.     Instead  of  not  assuming 

Assumptions  ^      .  .         .      .         .       ° 

that  the  Scriptures  are  uniquely  inspired, 

its  advocates  assume  that  the  Scriptures  are  not  uniquely 
inspired.  Instead  of  not  assuming  that  the  text  is  correct, 
they  assume  that  it  is  not  correct.  Instead  of  not  assum- 
ing that  the  testimony  is  true,  they  assume  that  it  is  not 
true.  Instead  of  not  assuming  that  the  biblical  statements 
are  trustv/orthy,  they  assume  that  they  are  not  trust- 
worthy. Instead  of  not  assuming  the  reality  of  miracle, 
they  assume  the  unreality  of  miracle.  Instead  of  not 
assuming  that  Christianity  is  on  a  different  footing  from 
the  other  great  religions,  they  assume  that  it  is  not  on  a 
different  footing.  They  hopelessly  distance  their  oppo- 
nents in  this  matter  of  making  undue  assumptions. 
.  Many  of  the  dift'erences  between  sound  criticism  and 
agnosticism  are  differences  of  procedure  rather  than  of 
principle.     The  two  begin  to  part  com- 

p!ocedurr  "**      P^"^'  ^^^^"  ^^^^^  ^^^^"  ^^  ^^^^^  ^^^  ^^^' 
dence.      They    find,    for    example,    the 

statement  that  King  Nebuchadnezzar  gave  three  years  of 

training  to  Daniel  and  his  companions,  terminating  in  the 

second  year  of  his  reign.  The  cryptoagnostic  says  at  once 

that  here  is  a  contradiction,  showing  tha':  the  account  is 

carelessly  written  and  is  untrue;  while  the  conservative 

scholar  notes  that  the  three  years  intended  are  Nebuchad- 


"jZ  Reaso7table  Biblical  Criticism 

nezzar's  accession  year  and  his  first  year  and  his  second 
year,  and  he  therefore  finds  no  contradiction.  They  find 
in  Genesis  two  reports  of  Abraham's  saying  that  his  wife 
is  his  kinswoman.  The  cryptoagnostic  assumes  that  the 
two  are  reports  of  the  same  event,  and  therefore  pro- 
nounces them  contradictory  and  not  to  be  depended  upon. 
The  conservative  scholar,  on  the  other  hand,  observes 
that  the  two  accounts  purport  to  refer  to  different  events, 
and  he  therefore  finds  no  contradiction.  Repeating  proc- 
esses like  these  many  thousands  of  times,  the  one  scholar 
forms  the  habit  of  treating  the  biblical  statements  of  fact 
with  contempt,  while  the  other  forms  the  habit  of  regard- 
ing them  as  so  remarkably  truthful  that  their  truthfulness 
must  be  accounted  for  as  the  product  of  their  inspiration. 
To  these  fundamental  wrong  assumptions  the  various 
schools  of  pseudo- criticism  add  others  that  are  less  gen- 
eral.    They  take  for  granted  not  only 

.  ].  *  the  sfeneral  theory  of  evolution,  but  con- 

Assumptions        .      ^  .        -^  . 

jectural  particular  theories  of  evolution. 
They  deny  biblical  statements  on  the  basis  of  hypotheses 
concerning  comparative  religion,  instead  of  using  the 
biblical  facts  to  correct  and  complete  the  hypotheses. 
According  to  the  trend  of  our  prejudices  we  should  all 
be  on  our  guard  against  saying  that  the  old  is  better  than 
the  new,  or  the  new  better  than  the  old.  Many  are  not 
thus  on  their  guard ;  they  assume  that  certain  innovations 
are  up  to  date,  and  are  therefore  the  thing,  when  in  fact 
they  are  not  up  to  date,  and  are  very  far  from  being  cor- 
rect. The  cryptoagnostic  criticism  extends  its  habit  of 
making  undue  assumptions  so  as  to  touch  a  vast  number 
of  details.    This  might  be  illustrated  by  the  matters  men- 


Accepted  Principles  of  Criticism  79 

tioned  in  the  remainder  of  this  chapter  and  in  the  follow- 
ing chapters. 

3.  To  be  truly  critical  one  should  go  as  near  the  original 
sources  as  possible. 

For  the  large  majority  of   Bible  students  the  object 

under  investigation  is  the  Bible  in  the  vernacular.    Those 

who  can   should  of   course  go  back  to 

_,         \.  the  copies   in   Greek  and   Hebrew,   and 

Observation  ^  i       A      • 

from  these  all  the  way  back  to  the  Scrip- 
tures as  originally  written.  When  one  interprets  the  Bible 
by  the  aid  of  geography  or  natural  history  or  archeology 
he  should  take  the  trouble  to  verify  his  facts,  and  not 
content  himself  with  conjectures  or  opinions. 

In  violation  of  this  principle  much  alleged  text  criti- 
cism and  improved  translation  is  the  substituting  of  mod- 
ern notions  for  ancient  facts.  If  we  could 
Violations         really  get  back  to  the  autographs — to  the 
original  writings  in  the  script  of  the  men 
who  wrote  them — and  could  substitute  these  for  our  exist- 
ing copies,  that  would  be  fine.   So  far  as  we  can  sanely  ap- 
proximate this,  text  criticism  is  legitimate.     But  it  is  a 
very  different  thing  to  take  some  man's  guess  concerning 
the  original  contents,  and  substitute  such  guesses  for  the 
texts  which  we  have. 

In  violation  of  this  principle,  a  good  deal  of  alleged 
Bible  study  is  the  study  of  what  men  have  said  about  the 
Scriptures,  rather  than  of  the  Scriptures  themselves. 

A  prevalent  vice  in  the  older  forms  of  Bible  study  is 
the  habit  of  following  what  we  have  been  accustomed  to 
think  that  the  Bible  says,  instead  of  actually  looking  up 
what  it  says ;  and  this  vice  has  been  taken  over  by  those 


8o  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

who  attack  the  older  ideas,  and  is  by  them  practiced  on  a 
magnified  scale. 

4.  To  be  truly  critical  one  must  attend,  in  any  case, 
to  all  the  evidence  that  is  within  reach. 

If  an  important  matter  is  mentioned  in  some  passage 
of  Scripture,  you  want  to  make  sure  that  you  understand 
all  which  that  passage  says  or  fairly  implies  concerning 
the  matter.  To  this  you  should  add  whatever  information 
you  can  gather  from  other  parts  of  the  Scriptures,  or  from 
sources  outside  the  Scriptures.  It  is  only  by  looking  at 
all  the  accessible  evidence,  examining  and  comparing  and 
sifting,  that  you  come  to  understand  the  matter  ade- 
quately. 

Often  it  is  only  through  these  processes  that  you  can 
be  sure  of  the  meaning  of  the  separate  parts  of  the  evi- 

The  Whole  as     dence.     Most  human  statements  have  to 

Interpreting        be  understood  as  limited  by  the  circum- 

the  Parts  stances  in  which  they  were  uttered.    No 

human  sentence  expresses  all  that  the  speaker  had  it  in 
mind  to  say.  We  understand  one  another's  remarks 
through  our  knowledge  of  what  preceded  the  remark  and 
what  followed,  and  through  our  insight  of  what  the 
speaker  intended  to  accomplish  by  his  remark.  And  so  it 
happens  that,  other  things  being  equal,  an  interpretation 
which  makes  an  account  consistent  is  to  be  preferred  to 
one  that  makes  the  account  inconsistent.  A  favorable 
interpretation  of  a  statement  is  in  some  degree  to  be  pre- 
ferred to  an  unfavorable  interpretation. 

Much  of  our  current  biblical  criticism  viciously  neg- 
lects this  law.  It  deliberately  ignores  parts  of  the  evi- 
dence.   It  minimizes  the  bearings  of  the  evidence  in  one 


Accepted  Principles  of  Criticism  8i 

direction,   and  exaggerates  its  bearings   in   the  opposite 

direction.     It  refuses  to  let  the  different  parts  have  their 

Cryptoagnostic    natural  effect  in  limiting  and  interpret- 

Ig'noring  of  the    ing   each   the   other.     On   the   basis   of 

Evidence  this  refusal  it  needlessly  resorts  to  text 

emendations  and  other  methods  of  modifying  the  facts 

as  given  in  the  evidence. 

For  example,  the  record  mentions  that  the  Canaanite 
and  the  Perizzite  were  in  the  land  of  Canaan  when  Abram 
migrated  thither  (Gen.  12  :  6  and  13  :  7).  Of  course, 
they  were  still  there  when  the  writer  wrote,  provided  the 
writer  was  contemporary  with  Moses.  The  writer  thinks 
that  his  readers  will  be  interested  in  the  fact  that  they 
were  already  there  when  Abram  came.  All  the  parts  of 
the  narrative  are  consistent  with  this  understanding  of 
the  matter.  But  certain  critics  are  not  content  with  this. 
They  insist  that  the  statements  imply  that  the  Canaanites 
and  Perizzites  were  no  longer  in  the  land  when  the  writer 
wrote;  and  from  this  they  infer  that  the  time  of  the 
writer  was  centuries  after  Moses,  and  they  also  infer 
that  the  narrative  as  we  have  it  is  self-contradictory.  All 
this  is  a  vicious  substitution  of  an  unnatural  meaning  for 
a  natural. 

Or  again,  many  critics  insist  that  the  prohibition  of 
the  matstseboth,  the  memorial  stones  (Deut.  16  :  22  and 
elsewhere),  brings  the  Deuteronomic  law  into  conflict 
with  other  parts  of  the  pehtateuch  and  with  passages 
in  the  other  Scriptures  {e.  g.  Gen.  28  :  18;  35  :  14; 
Ex.  24  :  4;  Isa.  19  :  19)  ;  and  they  absolutely  refuse  to 
take  notice  that  the  prohibition  is  by  its  terms  limited  to 
Israelites  residing  in  the  land  of  Canaan  after  its  con- 


82  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

quest  under  Joshua,  and  that  specific  reasons  are  assigned 
for  it,  and  that  it  applies  neither  in  letter  nor  in  spirit 
to  the  earlier  memorial  stones  in  Palestine  or  to  those  in 
Egypt.  See  ''Homiletic  Review"  for  Ma}^  1902,  page 
397- 

These  two  well  represent  practically  all  the  detailed 
instances  that  are  adduced  in  proof  of  the  excessively  late 
dates  of  the  sources  from  which  it  is  alleged  that  the  Old 
Testament  books  were  compiled,  or  in  proof  that  these 
sources  contradicted  one  another,  or  in  proof  that  the 
biblical  history  of  Israel  and  of  the  religion  of  Jehovah 
is  untrustworthy.  The  groundlessness  of  these  proposi- 
tions appears  when  one  simply  gives  fair  attention  to  the 
evidence  in  the  case,  allowing  each  part  to  interpret  the 
other  parts. 

5.  We  may  barely  mention  a  few  other  principles. 

In  the  study  of  an  object  the  presumption  is  that  the 
phenomena  which  are  obvious  are  also  genuine  and  im- 
portant.    This  presumption  may  be  only 

Favorable  r   r,^         j  -^  •     r   1.1     5    1.  u 

Pre  um  ti  s^^&"t»  ^^^  it  IS  liable  to  be  overcome  by 

evidence,  but  it  exists.  Other  things 
being  equal,  and  in  the  absence  of  some  degree  of  proof 
to  the  contrary,  we  are  to  take  each  part  of  the  Scriptures 
for  what  on  its  face  it  claims  to  be.  A  different  and  less 
correct  statement  of  this  rule  is  that  one  ought  to  believe 
every  statement  of  the  Bible  until  the  contrary  is  proved. 
There  is  a  difference  between  "some  degree  of  proof" 
and  full  proof. 

In  the  interest  of  correctness  in  our  Bible  studies  we 
should  remember  that  the  several  parts  were  written  for 
the  understanding  of  common  people — not  exclusively  or 


Accepted  Principles  of  Criticism  83 

principally  for  the  understanding  of  philosophers  or  ex- 
perts, but  for  that  of  persons  of  intel- 
P  *  /'  \^  k     ^^&^"^'   ordinary   good   sense.     Artificial 
or  finespun  interpretations  are  more  or 
less  suspicious. 

Inasmuch  as  the  Scriptures  are  literature,  true  critical 

method  requires  that  we  study  them  by  word  analysis  and 

parsing,  but  at  the  same  time  with  the 

Avoid  Wooden  r        n  ■s-rr  ^  ^1 

-  ^         ^  ^.  use  of  all  our  diiferent  mental  powers. 

Interpretations  ^ 

A  vast  amount  of  alleged  Bible  study  is 
a  mere  mechanical  going  through  the  motions.  Not  to 
delay  at  present  for  illustrations,  there  is  no  worse  foe  to 
live  Bible  study  than  the  habit  of  being  content  with 
merely  wooden  ideas.  We  must  use  the  laws  of  language 
in  determining  the  meaning  of  what  is  expressed  in 
language,  but  in  studying  literature  we  need  also  to  have 
our  sympathies  on  the  alert,  our  picture-making  faculties 
active,  our  whole  soul  awake. 

To  be  truly  critical  in  the  study  of  a  literature  one 
needs  to  have  the  habit  of  putting  himself  at  the  point  of 
The  Point  of  ^^^^  ^^  ^^^  people  for  whom  the  author 
View  of  the  originally  wrote.  But  nothing  could  be 
Author  more  uncritical  than  to  seek  to  obtain 

this  point  of  view  merely  by  reading  a  manual  that  some 
one  has  written  on  the  subject.  Get  acquainted  with 
the  sacred  writer  through  what  the  sacred  writer  him- 
self says.  Verify  for  yourself  the  alleged  facts  which 
indicate  his  surroundings  and  his  point  of  view.  To 
start  with  a  theory  of  the  development  of  religion,  to 
manufacture  from  that  theory  a  point  of  view  for  a 
sacred  writer,  and  then  to  interpret  his  writings  from  this 


% 


84  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

manufactured  point  of  view — this  is  a  common  procedure 

of  cryptoagnosticism,  and  it  is  as  vicious  as  it  is  common. 

If  you  are  truly  critical  you  will  often  seek  the  meaning 

of  a  statement  rather  by  making  an  induction   of  the 

facts  included  under  it  than  by  defining 
Induction  of  Facts    ..      ,  ttt,  ^i  a      c 

^  ..  .^         its  terms.     When  you  nnd  a  record  of 
versus  Definition  ■' 

events,  actual  or  supposable,  take  the 
trouble  to  think  out  the  nature  of  those  events,  including 
that  of  the  facts  that  are  necessarily  implied  in  them — 
facts  geographical,  topographical,  biological,  facts  of  hu- 
man nature,  facts  that  limit  the  movements  of  men  in 
masses,  other  pertinent  facts.  Doing  this  you  may  find 
that  you  have  a  new  apprehension  of  the  meaning  of  the 
words  in  which  the  writer  describes  the  events.  Be  care- 
ful not  to  substitute  your  ideas  for  those  held  by  the 
author  whom  you  are  interpreting;  use  these  processes 
exclusively  for  determining  what  the  author  means.  For 
illustrations  of  this  point  see  the  next  chapter  and  the 
chapters  that  follow. 

If  you  are  truly  critical  you  will  appreciate  the  fact 

that  a  certain  process  of  filling  in  by  the  reader  enters 

into  most  of  our  reading  of  literature, 

Fillmg-in  ^^^    ^^^^    .^   makes    a    great    difference 

Processes  _„.        .  .        . 

whether  our  filhng-m  processes  are  mtel- 

ligent.  If  you  have  not  observed  this,  give  it  some  atten- 
tion ;  it  is  worth  observing.  In  telling  Bible  stories  very 
few  persons  give  them  precisely  as  they  are  printed ;  each 
narrator  fills  in  with  matters  drawn  from  tradition  or 
from  his  own  imagination.  This  is  inevitable,  and  is  not 
necessarily  vicious.  But  when  questions  of  truthfulness 
are  at  stake  it  is  important  that  the  filling  in  shall  be  done 


Accepted  Principles  of  Criticism  85 

sanely  and  legitimately.  In  some  of  the  following  chap- 
ters we  shall  have  our  attention  called  to  instances 
that  do  not  meet  this  requirement. 

Questions  concerning  authority  in  religion  have  been 
much  discussed  in  late  years,  and  by  no  one  more  ably 

than  by  Principal  John  Oman,  of  Eng- 
Literature        land,  author  of  "Problem  of  Faith  and 

Freedom  in  the  Last  Two  Centuries," 
and  "Vision  and  Authority."  All  treatments  of  the  sub- 
ject are  misleading  so  far  forth  as  they  fail  to  distinguish 
between  authority  in  the  sense  of  evidence  that  compels 
assent,  and  authority  as  demanding  assent  independently 
of  the  evidence.  To  reject  authority  in  the  first  of  these 
two  senses  is  as  bad  as  to  accept  it  in  the  second. 


PART  II 


REASONABLE  CRITICISM  AS  AFFECTING  PARTICULAR 
OLD  TESTAMENT  NARRATIVES 


CHAPTER  VII 

THE    FIRST    NARRATIVE    IN    GENESIS 

I.  The  older  ideas  concerning  this  narrative.  Six  clock-measured 
days,  God  working  by  means.  Patristic  interpretations. 
Ideas  of  evolution.  Nebular  hypothesis  and  geological  days. 
Babylonian  and  other  versions.  II.  The  cryptoagnostic  view 
of  this  narrative.  III.  The  reasonable  view.  A  hypothetical 
viewpoint.  A  narrative  by  itself.  Its  subject.  Creation.  Its 
religious  purpose.  Its  artificial  structure.  Events  and  frame- 
work. The  events.  Supposing  them  to  be  real,  what  were 
they?  The  events  are  facts,  and  correctly  stated.  The  con- 
trast with  the  other  versions  of  the  story.  How  can  the 
narrative  be  accounted  for?     Literature. 

In  one  of  our  cities  there  exists  what  is  known  as  the 

"Borrowed  Time  Club,"  made  up  of  persons  who  are 

seventy  or  more  years  of  age.     Report 

r  xu-   KT       X-        says  that  this  club  is  to  a  remarkable  de- 
of  this  Narrative  -^ 

gree  alive  and  enjoyable.  When  the 
members  of  the  Borrowed  Time  Club  were  little  chil- 
dren they  were  taught,  from  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis, 
that  God  created  the  earth  and  the  skies,  some  six  or 
seven  thousand  years  ago,  in  six  successive  days  of  twen- 
ty-four hours  each,  as  measured  by  the  clock.  Many  of 
them,  however,  knew  more  theology  than  is  now  known 
by  most  little  children.  They  were  told  that  God  is 
infinite ;  that  God  is  not  a  mere  magnified  man,  though  we 
can  talk  about  him  only  in  human  words ;  that  when  the 
account  says  that  God  "rested,"  that  is  a  way  of  speaking, 
and  was  not  intended  to  imply  that  God  ever  gets  tired ; 


90  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

that  when  It  says  that  God  spoke,  it  does  not  mean  that 
he  has  hps  and  tongue.  In  a  general  way  they  under- 
stood that  the  processes  of  creation  were  a  series  of 
impulses  of  the  divine  will. 

They  were  also  taught,  however,  that  the  same  infinite 
God  who  created  the  world  also  keeps  it  in  being.     The 
boy  was  taught,   for  example,  not  only 
b**M    ^^  ^^^^  ^°^  originally  made  the  universe, 

but  that  God  made  him — made  his 
body  and  his  soul.  It  did  not  occur  to  him  that  this  was 
inconsistent  with  his  having  been  born  and  his  eating 
food  and  his  growing.  If  he  was  thoughtful  enough  he 
got  the  idea  that  God  made  him  by  the  processes  of  birth 
and  nourishment  and  growth.  He  thought  of  God  as  the 
maker  of  all  things,  and  as  making  most  things  with  the 
use  of  natural  forces  as  a  means.  His  idea  of  the  matter 
was  of  course  a  child's  idea,  but  it  was  not  as  mechanical 
as  many  persons  now  seem  to  imagine.  His  mind  was 
hospitable  to  the  thought  that  God  may  supposably  have 
used  means  even  in  the  events  recorded  in  the  first  narra- 
tive of  Genesis ;  though  he  was  taught  that  this  chapter 
is  a  history  of  beginnings,  and  that  the  beginnings 
differed  from  the  subsequent  course  of  nature  in  the  fact 
that  God  originally  made  all  things  ''of  nothing." 

Being  a  child,  he  was  not  aware,  as  some  of  his  elders 

were,   that  in  the   early   Christian   centuries  a   different 

Allegorical         Interpretation  had  by  some  been  given 

Patristic  to      this      narrative — an      interpretation 

Interpretation     which  recognized  certain  difficulties,  and 

attempted  to  remove  them  by  regarding  the  passage  as 

allegory  rather  than  fact. 


The  First  Narrative  in  Genesis  91 

Most  of  the  present  members  of  the  Borrowed  Time 
Club,  when  they  were  Httle  children,  were  more  or  less 
Evolution  as       familiar    with    the    idea    of    evolution, 
Held  by  Our      though  they  may  oftener  have  heard  it 
Grandfathers      called      "development."        The     change 
wrought  by  Darwin  and  Spencer  and  their  associates  was 
not  the  introducing  of  the  idea  of  evolution,  but  that  of 
particular  doctrines   of  evolution.     Religious   people   of 
past  generations  have  recognized  the  phenomena  of  evolu- 
tion, though  not  as   a  substitute   for   God's   activity   in 
bringing  things  to  pass. 

Great  changes,  however,  occurred  in  the  popular  scien- 
tific beliefs  of  men,  and  there  was  great  activity  in  pub- 
lishing these  changes  during  the  years  when  the  members 
of  the  Borrowed  Time  Club  were  passing  through  school 
and  college.  On  the  basis  of  generations  of  geological 
study  men  reached  the  conclusion  that  the  earth  was  not 
suddenly  made  about  six  thousand  years  ago,  but  that  it 
has  been  formed  by  gradual  processes,  extending  through 
uncounted  ages.  On  the  basis  of  biological  and  other 
investigations  they  came  to  think  that  evolution  has  played 
a  much  more  prominent  part  in  the  history  of  the  universe 
than  was  formerly  supposed ;  that,  with  proper  definition, 
we  may  even  regard  evolution  as  a  universal  law  of  nature. 
These  changes  in  human  thinking  had  very  specific 
bearings  on  the  question  of  the  character  of  the  first 
Are  the  narrative  in  Genesis.    While  the  present 

Genesis  Days      members   of   the   Borrowed   Time   Club 
Long  Periods  ?    were  children  or  young  people,  Mr.  Her- 
bert Spencer  attracted  attention  to  the  so-called  nebular 
hypothesis  as  a  way  of  accounting  for  the  earth  and  the 


92  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

solar  system  as  products  of  evolution.  The  nebular 
hypothesis  had  previously  been  held  by  Laplace  and  the 
Herschels  and  perhaps  by  Kant,  and  by  the  followers  of 
these  men ;  but  it  was  Mr.  Spencer  who  brought  it  to  the 
front.  The  question  of  the  relations  of  the  first  chapters 
of  Genesis  to  the  nebular  hypothesis  and  to  geology  be- 
came a  practical  one.  Such  men  as  Hugh  Miller  of 
Scotland,  and  Professor  Guyot  of  Princeton,  and  Presi- 
dent Hitchcock  of  Amherst,  and  Professor  Tayler  Lewis 
of  Union,  published  their  solutions  of  the  problem.  At- 
tempts were  made  to  prove  that  each  of  the  six  days  of 
the  first  chapter  of  Genesis  is  a  long  geological  period. 
Others  thought  that  the  long  geological  ages  are  covered 
by  the  first  verse  in  Genesis,  and  that  the  rest  of  the  chap- 
ter describes  a  miraculous  fitting  up  of  the  earth  in  six 
ordinary  days,  at  a  comparatively  recent  point  in  geologi- 
cal time.  The  men  who  framed  these  theories  were  care- 
ful and  scholarly,  and  many  still  accept  the  theories.  It 
does  not  seem  to  me  that  they  made  out  their  case. 

Up   to   this   stage   it   was   not   clearly   known   among 
scholars  that  several  of  the  pre-Abrahamic  Bible  stories 

exist  in  other  versions   than   the   Bible 

Babylonian  and  .  -r^  ,  J_^     ^    ^     - 

^.,      -,     .  version.  It  was  known  that  stories  some- 

Other  Versions 

what  similar  had  been  handed  down 
among  the  Phoenicians  and  other  peoples,  and  for  a  long 
time  nothing  more  was  known  in  the  matter.  At  length 
Assyrian  copies  of  Babylonian  documents  were  discov- 
ered, showing  that  the  stories  of  beginnings  which  we 
have  in  the  Bible  were  also  current  in  Babylonia,  though 
with  details  different  from  those  found  in  the  Bible. 
More   recently   there   have   been   discovered   Babylonian 


The  First  Narrative  in  Genesis  93 

fragments  of  some  of  these  stories,  dating  from  times  long 
before  Abraham.  The  earliest  narratives  which  we  have 
in  the  Bible  are  stories  which  were  widely  circulated  in 
very  early  times,  among  different  peoples,  and  with  dif- 
ferences in  details.  Either  the  Bible  writers  copied  and 
changed  the  Babylonian  stories,  or  the  Babylonians  copied 
and  changed  the  biblical,  or  both  obtained  them  from 
some  more  ultimate  source. 

These  being  the  elements  of  the  problem,  the  crypto- 
agnostic  criticism  first  of  all  insists  on  the  ultramechani- 
Tl^g  cal  interpretation  of  the  first  narrative  in 

Cryptoagnosdc  Genesis — the  making  of  the  sky  and  the 
Interpretation  earth  and  its  inhabitants  in  six  clock- 
measured  days,  with  no  appreciation  of  the  anthropo- 
morphic character  of  the  expressions  used.  Then,  with 
a  great  swing  of  contempt,  it  scouts  the  idea  that  there  is 
any  element  of  true  fact  in  the  narrative.  It  is  particu- 
larly scornful  of  all  the  attempts  to  bring  the  account  into 
harmony  with  science.  It  not  only  finds  no  fact  in  this 
narrative ;  it  refuses  to  seek  for  any. 

"To  seek  for  even  a  kernel  of  historical  fact  in  such 
cosmogonies  is  inconsistent  with  a  scientific  point  of 
view."     ("Creation"  in  Encyclopedia  Biblica.) 

With  some  difiFerences  among  themselves  its  advocates 
affirm  that  this  Genesis  narrative  was  written  after  the 
Babylonian  exile.  They  say  that  the  descendants  of  the 
Jews  whom  Nebuchadnezzar  carried  away  found  the 
Assyrian  copies  in  Mesopotamia,  reconstructed  the  story 
so  as  to  eliminate  the  polytheistic  elements,  and  thus  made 
of  it  the  narrative  which  we  now  have,  which  is  therefore 
merely  a  reworked  piece  of  Babylonian  folklore. 


94  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

In  discussing  the  views  thus  presented,  we  need  have 
just  one  question  before  us.  What  is  the  truth  in  the  case? 
If  it  were  true  that  the  account  is  merely  a  myth,  of  no 
value  as  fact,  good  only  for  certain  religious  ideas  which 
it  presents,  then  we  ought  to  believe  this  truth.  Why 
should  not  Holy  Scripture  use  this  form  of  fiction  for 
teaching  purposes  ?  Let  us  accept  this  view  of  the  matter 
if  the  evidence  justifies  it;  but  also  let  us  not  accept  it  if 
the  evidence  is  against  it. 

Suppose  the  case  of  a  person  having  some  familiarity 

with  the  nebular  hypothesis  and  with  geology,  and  also 

having  a  good  habit  of  literary  appre- 
A  Hypothetical       •    ,•  ,  ,  .         ..    . 

^.         •  X  ciation    and    some    degree    of    religious 

knowledge  and  insight,  but  who  has 
never  heard  of  this  first  narrative  in  Genesis;  and  sup- 
pose this  person  to  read  the  narrative  as  a  literary  product 
to  him  entirely  new ;  what  would  such  a  person  make 
of  it? 

To  begin  with,  he  would  have  no  hesitation  in  pro- 
nouncing that  this  first  narrative  is  a  literary  product  by 
itself,  closing  with  the  third  verse  of  the 
by  Its  If  second  chapter.    It  differs  from  the  nar- 

rative that  follows,  in  its  subject,  its 
point  of  view,  its  type  of  anthropomorphism,  and  in  many 
points  of  literary  form.  If  he  were  told,  however,  that 
the  two  narratives  are  in  contradiction  and  have  nothing 
in  common,  he  would  pronounce  the  statement  erroneous. 
The  second  narrative  is  consistent  with  the  first,  and 
supplements  it. 

He  would  presently  ascertain  that  the  subject  of  the 
narrative  is  God's  originating  the  earth  and  its  products 


The  First  Narrative  in  Genesis  95 

and  inhabitants,  the  heavens  coming  in  only  for  subsidiary 
mention.     He  would  note  the  technical  word  ''create." 

Finding  it  defined  in  some  dictionaries 
Creation         as  meaning  to  make  out  of  nothing,  he 

would  perhaps  verify  the  definition  by 
looking  up  the  passages  where  the  word  occurs.  If  so, 
he  would  find  that  in  the  Bible  this  word  means  to  origi- 
nate divinely,  whether  from  pre-existing  materials  or  not. 
No  being  except  God  creates ;  but  God  creates,  for  ex- 
ample, the  successive  generations  of  men  and  animals 
that  are  born  {e.  g.,  Psa.  89  :  47;  104  :  30;  Isa.  54  :  16; 
Ezek.  21  :  30;  Mai.  2  :  10),  and  not  their  original  pro- 
genitors merely.  You  may  hold  it  to  be  true  that  ulti- 
mately all  which  God  makes  is  made  of  nothing,  but  the 
Bible  often  uses  the  word  ''create"  where  there  are 
mediate  processes.  We  speak  of  God  as  the  Creator  of 
the  persons  and  things  that  now  exist.  We  may  think 
of  any  product  as  the  last  term  of  a  series  of  second 
causes,  the  divine  energy  being  the  first  term;  or  if  we 
prefer  we  may  concentrate  our  attention  on  the  first 
term  and  the  last,  withdrawing  it  from  the  intermediate 
terms,  and  regard  the  product  only  in  the  aspect  in  which 
it  results  from  the  divine  energy.  The  subject  of  this 
first  narrative  in  Genesis  Is  the  divine  origination  of 
things,  whatever  mediate  processes  may  or  may  not  have 
entered  into  the  origination. 

Without  hesitation  our  supposed  reader  would  decide 

that  the  principal  purpose  of  the  narra- 
eigious    urpose  ^j^^  -^  ^^  impress  religious  lessons — les- 
sons concerning  the  character  and  works  and  supremacy 
of    God,    and    concerning   the    sabbath.      This,    and    not 


96  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

the  giving  of  information,  is  the  great  aim  of  the  nar- 
rator. Whether  he  teaches  these  lessons  through  events 
that  actually  occurred,  or  through  events  that  have  been 
invented  for  the  purpose,  is  a  question  to  be  settled 
by  examining  the   events   themselves. 

Our  investigator  would  observe  that  the  narrative  is 

highly  artificial  in  its  structure.     Whether  he  called  it 

poetry  or  prose,  he  would  observe  that 

^,  *  *^*^  it  consists  of  several  series  of  statements, 

structure 

similar  in  form,  with  recurrmg  repeti- 
tions of  phrases.  He  would  observe  its  recurrent  presen- 
tation of  God  as  the  sovereign  of  the  universe,  who  gives 
orders  and  is  obeyed.  Not  least  he  would  notice  the  idea 
of  a  week's  work  of  Deity,  followed  by  a  sabbath  rest. 
He  would  inevitably  recognize  two  elements  in  the  narra- 
tive— a  series  of  events,  and  an  artificial  framework 
devised  for  making  vivid  the  presentation  of  the  events. 
The  days  in  the  narrative  are  a  part  of  the  framework; 
whether  they  have  any  other  relation  to  the  events  is  a 
question  to  be  determined  by  study,  and  not  by  antecedent 
assumption. 

Among   the   events    are   first   the    orderless    earth,    in 
watery  darkness,  but  with  the  Spirit  of  God  operating 
upon  it ;  then  light  alternating  with  dark- 
The  Events       ness  as  day  and  night ;  then  a  water  sur- 
face for  the  earth,  with  the  open  expanse 
above  it,  and  other  waters  above  that ;  then  the  emerging 
of  the  land  surface ;  then  the  making  of  the  sun  and  moon 
and  stars  to  be  luminaries  to  the  earth ;  then  the  animals 
of  the  water  and  the  air ;  then  the  land  animals,  with  man 
as  the  highest. 


The  First  Narrative  in  Genesis  97 

We  are  not  yet  ready  to  decide  whether  these  events  are 
fact  or  are  fictitious.    If,  however,  for  the  sake  of  reason- 
ing, we  suppose  them  to  be  fact,  then 

EventTtoVe  Real  ^^^^  ^^^  "°^  ^  complete  account  of  all 
that  occurred,  but  only  a  few  events 
selected  from  among  myriads.  And  the  selection  was 
made,  presumably,  not  with  the  view  of  making  the  infor- 
mation given  complete,  but  with  the  view  of  filling  out 
the  framework,  and  of  giving  force  to  the  religious  teach- 
ings. Nothing  could  be  more  inept  than  to  reason  from 
the  silences  of  the  narrative — from  the  matters  it  has 
omitted  to  mention. 

Further,  supposing  these  events  to  be  fact,  then  the 
work  of  each  of  the  six  creative  days  is  still  in  process. 
The  light  still  exists,  with  alternating  day  and  night.  We 
may  see  the  earth's  water  surface  with  the  open  expanse 
above  it,  and  the  waters  of  the  clouds  above  that ;  and  the 
process  is  still  incomplete,  for  the  surface  of  the  earth 
is  still  liable  to  change.  Similar  statements  might  be  made 
concerning  each  of  the  other  great  events.  All  this  inter- 
prets the  fact  that  the  author  of  the  narrative  is  silent  as 
to  the  close  of  each  of  these  events.  We  have  no  right 
to  infer  that  he  intended  us  to  understand  that  each  event 
terminated  before  the  next  began;  we  should  rather 
understand  that  they  all  overlap. 

Yet  further,  supposing  these  events  to  be  fact,  we 
should  allow  each  one  to  interpret  the  others  as  fact.  For 
example,  the  earth  had  properly  no  surface  before  the 
interposing  of  the  "expanse"  on  the  second  day,  and 
its  "waters"  were  largely  vaporous,  and  its  periphery  not 
fixed.    The  alternating  day  and  night  of  the  first  creative 


98  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

day  was  due  to  the  rotation  of  the  mass,  the  sun  being 
then  in  existence,  though  it  did  not  till  long  afterward  be- 
come the  visible  luminary  of  the  earth. 

Again,  supposing  these  events  to  be  facts,  they  are 
facts  as  appearing  to  a  supposable  observer,  and  not  as 
adjusted  to  the  theories  of  geology  or  of  mathematical 
astronomy. 

Once  more,  supposing  these  events  to  be  of  the  nature 
of  fact,  they  are  processes  which  have  occupied  uncounted 
thousands  of  years.  This  is  very  dififerent  from  saying 
that  the  creative  days  were  periods  of  many  thousands 
of  years.  The  events,  provided  they  are  fact  and  not 
fancy,  occupied  the  whole  range  of  geological  time,  no 
matter  what  conclusion  you  may  reach  concerning  the 
days. 

In  fine,  supposing  this  narrative  to  be  a  narrative  of 

facts,  it  begins  with  the  earth  as  an  immense  vaporous, 

inorganic,  rotating  mass.     It  is  surface- 

.,  _    -         less,    its   constituent   materials    reaching 
Were,  \i  Real  '  ...  ,         . 

out  m  every  direction  into  space,  but  it 

is  under  the  influence  of  a  divine  cosmical  force  which 

is  reducing  it  to  order.     In  process  of  time  the  rotating 

mass  becomes  approximately  delimited ;  and  then,  at  any 

point  where  the  future  surface  will  be,  there  is  alternation 

of  day  and  night.    The  sun  is  not  visible  through  the  ovei 

hanging  vapor,  but  there  is  dim  daylight  during  half  of 

each  rotation  of  the  mass.     In  process  of  time  the  water 

surface  of  the  planet  becomes  differentiated.     It  is  one 

vast  ocean,  and  over  it  the  open  expanse,  but  with  water 

in  the  form  of  vapor  above  the  expanse,  so  thick  that  the 

sun  is  still  invisible.     As  time  rolls  on,  the  land  surface 


The  First  Nm^rative  in  Genesis  99 

emerges  from  the  water.  Like  any  modern  geographer 
the  narrator  here  speaks  of  the  earth's  ocean  system  as  a 
unit,  made  up  of  the  many  seas.  The  beginnings  of  land 
vegetation  follow,  the  narrator  not  mentioning  marine 
vegetation  at  all.  Then  the  sun  and  moon  and  stars  be- 
come visible  luminaries,  and  animal  life  begins. 

If  the  Genesis  narrative  deals  with  facts,  these  are  the 

facts  with  which  it  deals ;  and  if  anyone  will  take  the 

trouble   to   obtain    this   correct   idea   of 

->  ^  J  ^  .  them,  he  will  then  be  sure  that  the  narra- 
Facts,  and  Correct  '  ^ 

tive  deals  with  facts,  and  that  it  states  the 
facts  correctly.  The  events  it  uses  are  not  mythical  or 
fanciful;  they  are  the  same  great  cosmical  facts  which 
science  now  sets  forth  in  its  astronomical  and  geological 
and  biological  generalizations.  There  is  no  question  of 
reconciling  Genesis  and  science;  there  is  instead  the  un- 
mistakable fact  that  science  verifies  the  outline  and  the 
important  details  of  the  account  given  in  Genesis. 

Of  course  this  showing  is  remarkable.  This  narrator 
was  doubtless  ignorant  of  the  scientific  discoveries  of  the 
centuries,  and  yet  he  has  somehow  got  hold  of  certain 
permanent  facts,  which  were  true  in  the  light  of  what- 
ever knowledge  men  had  in  his  time,  which  have  remained 
true  to  whatever  knowledge  men  have  since  acquired,  and 
which  will  remain  true  in  the  future,  no  matter  how  far 
science  may  outgrow  its  present  generalizations. 
The  Contrast  ^^^  thing  becomes  more  remarkable 

with  the  when  we  contrast  the  biblical  version  of 

Other  Versions  this  ancient  story  with  the  other  ancient 
versions  of  it.  They  all  alike  start  in  the  conception  of 
primeval  chaos.     So  far,  they  might  all  claim  to  be  in 


lOO  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

agreement  with  the  nebular  hypothesis.  But  the  others 
at  once  become  grotesque.  There  is  not  in  any  of  them 
a  trace  of  an  orderly  cosmical  process,  much  less  of  the 
particular  cosmical  process  which  makes  the  narrative  in 
Genesis  parallel  with  the  course  of  events  as  defined  by 
human  discoveries. 

Of  course  there  are  those  who  will  say  that  the  writer 
of  the  Genesis  narrative  cannot  possibly  have  known  the 
How  Can  this  ^^^^^  ^^^^  ^^^  \v2M^  found  in  his  produc- 
Narrativebe  tion,  and  that  we  must  therefore  give 
Accounted  for  ?  some  other  meaning  to  what  he  says. 
This  is  illegitimate  reasoning.  How  can  you  tell  what 
he  knew,  except  from  what  he  says?  If  the  thing  was 
beyond  his  knowledge,  how  can  you  account  for  his  say- 
ing it?  Some  old-fashioned  person  will  account  for  the 
Genesis  writer's  having  and  uttering  this  knowledge  by 
saying  that  God  gave  it  to  him  by  special  revelation ;  can 
you  give  a  better  account  of  the  matter?  Suppose  we 
state  it  a  little  more  cautiously,  though  perhaps  without 
any  real  difference  in  the  meaning.  There  have  been 
cases  in  which  religious  earnestness  has  given  men  re- 
markable insight  into  the  nature  of  things.  Can  this  be 
explained  as  one  of  those  cases?  Whether  you  can  ac- 
count for  it  or  not,  careful  study  vindicates  the  concrete 
truthfulness  of  the  first  narrative  in  Genesis. 

George  Smith's  "Chaldean  Account  of  Genesis,  Etc.," 
originally  published  in  1876,  is  still  good  reading.  Ac- 
counts of  the  Babylonian  stories,  with  partial  translations 
from  them,  are  found  in  many  Teachers'  Bibles,  and  other 
books  of  reference.  A  series  of  compact  translations, 
well  up  to  date,  may  be  found  in  Kent's  "Beginnings  of 


1  Jie  First  1\' arrative  in  Genesis  loi 

Hebrew  History,"  pages  360  ff.,  and  in  the  earlier  part  of 
the  same  volume  may  be  found  a  typical  presentation  of 

the   so-called   modern   critical   views   of 
Literature        the   matter.      Find    other   presentations 

in  the  articles  on  ''Creation"  in  the 
Encyclopedias  and  Bib^^  Dictionaries,  and  in  commen- 
taries on  Genesis. 

'The  Earth's  Beginning,"  by  Sir  Robert  Stawell  Ball, 
is  a  good  presentation  of  the  nebular  hypothesis.  Numer- 
ous and  good  volumes  have  been  published  on  the  rela- 
tions of  science  to  the  account  in  Genesis.  Distinctly 
the  best  is  "The  Panorama  of  Creation,"  by  the  Rev. 
David  L.  Holbrook,  published  by  The  Sunday  School 
Times  Company  in  1908.  See  also  such  articles  as  "The 
Interpretation  of  Bible  Word-Pictures"  {American  Pres- 
byterian Review,  January,  1869),  and  "The  Six  Creative 
Days"  (Westminster  Teacher,  July,  1901). 


CHAPTER  VIII 

THE   FLOOD    NARRATIVE 


Introductory :  The  P  and  J  sections  in  Genesis.  The  flood  narra- 
tive as  an  illustration.  Does  the  Bible  say  that  Noah's  Hood 
was  universal?  I.  Is  this  narrative  composite?  i.  Analysis 
of  sections.  2.  Accounting  for  the  phenomena  on  the  P  and 
J  hypothesis.  No  objection  on  theological  grounds.  Critical 
objections.  The  hypothesis  not  agreed  upon  by  all  scholars. 
In  conflict  with  some  of  the  phenomena.  Other  supposable 
hypotheses.  Groundlessness  of  the  alleged  late  dates.  II. 
Is  this  narrative  self-contradictory?  i.  The  importance  of 
the  question.  2.  Allegations.  Clean  and  unclean.  Worship 
by  sacrifice.  Twos  and  sevens.  Forty  days  and  other  time 
data.  3.  Reasons  against  interpreting  discrepantly.  The 
natural  presumption.  The  supposed  redactor  saw  no  incon- 
sistencies. III.  Is  this  narrative  untruthful?  Truthfulness 
versus  historicity.  Consistency  proves  truthfulness.  Baby- 
lonian folklore  as  an  alternative.  IV.  Is  this  narrative  his- 
torical? Numerical  difficulties.  A  year-myth?  Widespread 
traditions.  Soberness  and  minute  details.  The  whole  evi- 
dence indicates  historicity.     Literature. 


Any  one  can  see  that  there  are  marked  literary  differ- 
ences between  Genesis  2  :  4  to  4  :  26  and  the  section  that 
Literary  precedes.     The  second  section  is  more 

Differences       picturesque  in  its  details,  deals  more  with 
in  Genesis         particulars  and  less  with  generalizations, 
presents  God  less  as  the  Supreme  Being  and  more  as  an 
approachable  person,  mentions  God  as  accomplishing  re- 

NoTE. — This  chapter  is  rewritten  from  the  article  "Is  the  De- 
luge Story  Self-Contradictory?"  published  in  the  Homiletic  Re- 
view,  October,  1903. 
102 


The  Flood  Narrative  103 

suits  through  means  rather  than  by  fiat.  It  has  a  diflferent 
vocabulary  from  the  first  section,  and  sentences  differ- 
ently constructed.  It  is  less  given  to  serial  statements, 
and  to  the  repeating  of  phrases.  It  is  less  stately,  and 
has  more  of  emotional  interest.  And  quite  apart  from 
particulars,  the  literary  feeling  of  the  two  sections  is 
different. 

It  has  been  customary  to  specify  as  one  of  the  import- 
ant differences  the  fact  that  the  first  narrative  denotes 

„,  ..         ,       the  Supreme  Being  solely  by  the  word 
Elohim  and  i   i  -     \         i   ^   j  ^r^     i  »       ,  •,       t 

Jehovah  elohim,  translated     God,"  while  the  sec- 

ond narrative  uses  the  proper  name  Jeho- 
vah ;  but  this  fact  is  less  significant  than  some  have  sup- 
posed. In  Hebrew  the  word  elohim  approximates  an 
abstract  meaning,  like  our  word  "Deity."  Jehovah  is  a 
proper  name.  A  third  word,  el,  Power,  is  strictly  the 
word  corresponding  to  "God."  It  is  used  in  Genesis 
especially  in  compounds,  such  as  God  Almighty,  God 
Most  High.  If  you  will  examine  carefully  you  will  see 
that  these  words  are  used  in  Genesis  with  great  exacti- 
tude, according  to  their  respective  meanings.  In  most 
instances  it  would  be  inaccurate  to  substitute  one  of  them 
for  the  other.  In  the  generalized  statements  of  the  first 
narrative,  "Deity"  is  strictly  the  correct  word  to  use; 
while  the  personal  name  Jehovah  is  the  proper  word  to 
use  in  describing  the  intimacies  of  the  garden  and  the 
personal  relations  of  the  Supreme  Being  to  Adam  and 
Eve  and  Cain  and  Abel. 

If  you  examine  you  will  find  that  some  of  the  literary 
characteristics  of  the  first  narrative  reappear  in  the  lists 
of  names  in  Genesis  5  and  1 1  :  10-26,  and  in  the  account 


I04  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

of  the  covenant  of  circumcision  in  Genesis  17;  while  the 
characteristics  of  the  second  section  may  be  found  in 
various   other   passages.      These    differ- 
Other  Sections    ences  and  groupings  of  differences  are 
observed   facts,   however  you   may   ac- 
count for  them.     The  so-called  Modern  View  accounts 
for  them  by  saying  that  the  first  narrative  and  others  like 
it  were  copied  into  Genesis  from  a  priestly  writing,  now 
commonly  designated  as  P,  while  the  second  section  and 
others  like  it  were  copied  from  a  different  source  called  J. 
In  many  passages  it  is  alleged  that  composite  author- 
ship is  indicated  by  repetitions,  the  compiler  of  Genesis 
having  made  up  his  narrative  by  copying  short  sections 
alternately   from   two   or  more   sources.     Probably   the 
account  of  the  flood  (Genesis  6  :    5  to  9  :  29)  is  the  most 
obvious  and  intelligible  of  all  the  instances  of  this  kind, 
and  therefore  the  most  available  for  investigation. 

We  have  been  accustomed  to  think  that  the  Noah  flood 
covered  the  whole  surface  of  the  round  earth;  but  the 

account  does  not  say  that  it  did.     "All 
Was  it  a  universal   ,,      ,.   ,  i.   •        .1     ^  1       .1 

Delude?  ^     ^^     mountams  that  were  under  the 

whole  heaven  were  covered"   (Gen.  7  : 

19) .    The  natural  meaning  of  this  is  that  all  the  mountain 

tops  within  the  entire  horizon  were  covered,  so  that  a 

spectator  from  the  ark  saw  no  summits,  saw  nothing  but 

water.     It  is  likely  enough  that  at  some  time  or  other 

every  region  of  the  earth  may  have  been  submerged  in 

great  catastrophes,  one  region  at  one  date  and  another 

region  at  another  date ;  and  this  may  account  for  aqueous 

remains  everywhere,  and  for  flood  traditions  among  all 

races ;  but  it  is  not  easy  to  think  of  a  simultaneous  sub- 


The  Flood  Narrative  105 

mergence  of  the  whole  planet.  The  account  in  Genesis, 
however,  is  inconsistent  with  the  idea  of  a  merely  local 
flood  in  any  narrow  sense.  It  was  wide  enough  to  involve 
the  whole  human  population  of  whom  the  writer  in 
Genesis  is  speaking.  It  is  called  by  the  technical  name 
mabbul  (Gen.  6  :  17  ff ;  Ps.  29  :  10),  implying  that  it  is 
the  one  event  of  its  class  in  history,  and  not  a  mere  ordi- 
nary inundation. 

We  have  four  questions  to  ask  concerning  the  flood 
narrative. 

I.  First,  is  it  composite  ?  In  particular,  can  we  be  cer- 
tain that  it  was  composed  by  transcribing  alternate  sec- 
tions from  two  preceding  documents  ? 

By  the  words  "These  are  the  generations  of  Noah"  the 
final  writer  of  Genesis  indicates  that  he  enters  upon  a  new 
topic  in  Genesis  6  :  9,  but  that  need  not  prevent  our 

noticing  that  he  has  anticipated  the  new 
Analysis  of  this      ,      •      •      ^t  •  i  •   ^  i  j 

-.        .  topic  m  the  verses  immediately  preced- 

ing. The  following  division  into  sections 
has  no  value  except  to  mark  the  repetitions  which,  it  is 
alleged,  indicate  the  process  of  transcribing  alternately 
from  J  and  P. 

1.  God's  purpose  to  destroy  the  corrupt  earth,  and  his 
favor  for  Noah  (J  6  :  5-8.     P  6  :  9-12). 

2.  God's  revelation  to  Noah  (P  6  :  13-22.    J  7  :  1-5). 

3.  Noah  entering  the  ark  (J  7  :  6-10.     P  7  :  11-16). 

4.  The  rise  of  the  water  and  the  extinction  of  life  on 
the  earth  (J  7  :  17  and  22-23a.  P  7  :  18-21  and  7  :  23b 
to  8  :  2a). 

5.  The  subsidence  of  the  water  (J  8  :  2b-3a  and  6-12. 
P  8  :  3b-5). 


io6  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

6.  The  earth  dry  (P  8  :   13a.    J  8  :  13b). 

7.  Coming  out  of  the  ark  (P  8  :   14-19). 

8.  God's  blessing  mankind  (J  8  :  20-22.  P  9  :  1-17). 
In  J  the  blessing  is  connected  with  Noah's  altar  and  sac- 
rifice. In  P  it  consists  of  two  sections,  the  second  being 
that  of  the  rainbow  covenant. 

9.  Noah's  sons  (J  9  :  18-27). 

10.  Summary  for  Noah  (P  9  :  28,  29). 

Beyond  a  few  general  observations  it  is  useless  to  try 
to  make  the  argument  in  this  matter  intelligible  except 
Is  the  P  and  J  ^^  those  who  will  go  to  their  Bibles  with 
Hypothesis  it,  and  work  the  matter  out  clause  by 
Proved?  clause.     In  seven  of  these  ten  sections 

the  writer,  after  making  certain  statements,  has  gone 
back  on  his  path  and  repeated  the  statements,  with  varia- 
tions of  language,  and  with  additional  details.  To  some 
extent  the  variations  of  language  are  uniform  as  between 
the  P  and  the  J  sections,  and  conform  to  those  which 
mark  the  alleged  P  and  J  sections  elsewhere  in  Genesis ; 
though  there  are  a  large  number  of  instances  in  which  this 
is  not  the  case.  In  the  third  of  the  numbered  sections  in 
particular  the  criteria  are  very  much  mixed,  and  there  is 
hardly  a  section  in  which  they  are  not  mixed  to  some 
extent. 

What  conclusion  are  we  to  draw  from  these  phe- 
nomena? Do  they  prove  that  the  author  of  our  present 
narrative  had  before  him  two  earlier  narratives  of  the 
flood,  and  that  he  did  his  work  by  copying  first  from  one 
and  then  from  the  other  ?  Have  we  here  really  two  inde- 
pendent narratives  put  together  by  a  later  writer? 
There  is  nothing  in  any  current  doctrine  of  inspira- 


The  Flood  Narrative  107 

tion  to  forbid  our  answering  these  questions  affirmatively. 

The  Spirit  of  God  is  as  competent  to  produce  a  writing 

by  inspiring  for  the  purpose  two  or  more  men  in  different 

Not  Excluded      centuries  as  by  inspiring  one  man.     Or- 

by  Doctrine         thodox  theologians  have  commonly  ac- 

of  Inspiration       cepted  the  idea  that  the  inspired  writers 

of  Scripture  may  have  drawn  from  literary  sources.     If 

we   regard   the    differences   presently   to   be   mentioned 

simply  as  differences,  not  as  contradictions,  they  may  very 

naturally  be  accounted  for  as  coming  from  two  accounts 

of  the  flood,  written  by  men  of  different  habits,   with 

different  specific  objects  in  view.    And  there  are  various 

items  that  would  go  to  confirm  this  explanation. 

As  long  as  one  regards  this  P  and  J  theory  merely 
as  a  hypothesis,  which  may  aid  in  classifying  the  phe- 
nomena, it  may  be  a  harmless  and  use- 

^^^^f*"!!",    ful  hypothesis;  but  when  one  treats  it 
and  not  a  Fact  -' ^  .         .,.,,. 

as  a  fact,  on  the  basis  of  which  he  is 

authorized  to  change  the  text  of  Genesis,  and  to  afftrm 
that  the  narrative  is  inconsistent  and  untrue,  that  is 
another  matter.  It  Is  a  hypothesis  not  universally  ac- 
cepted. Conservative  scholars  very  generally  reject  it. 
Some  agnostics  are  dropping  it  in  favor  of  newer  the- 
ories. The  men  who  hold  it  differ  among  themselves. 
The  usual  theory  makes  the  assumption  that  the  writer 
of  P  thought  that  the  name  of  Jehovah  and  the  worship 
of  him  by  sacrifices  were  unknown  till  the  time  of  Moses ; 
while  the  idea  that  he  thought  so  is  absurdly  in  conflict 
with  the  testimony  and  with  the  phenomena.  How  could 
he,  with  the  J  writings  in  his  possession,  doubt  that  sac- 
rifices were  offered  to  Jehovah  in  the  patriarchal  times? 


io8  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

Further,  in  the  flood  narrative  as  it  stands  a  large 
number  of  alleged  J  peculiarities  are  found  in  the  alleged 
P  sections,  and  P  peculiarities  in  the  J  sections.  The 
details  have  to  be  adjusted  by  text  emendations  or  by 
harmonizing  processes,  before  the  parts  of  the  narra- 
tive can  be  made  to  fit  the  theory.  In  this  the  flood  nar- 
rative is  typical.  The  final  verdict  will  doubtless  be  for 
the  modification  of  the  theory,  and  not  of  the  phenomena. 

You  will  find  a  further  reason  against  the  current 
theory  if  you  will  read  the  alleged  J  sections  by  them- 
selves, and  the  alleged  P  sections  by  themselves,  and 
contrast  the  richness  of  the  existing  story  with  the  bare- 
ness of  either  of  its  alleged  sources.  The  existing  flood 
story  is  the  work  of  a  person  eminently  gifted  in  the 
art  of  narration;  it  is  not  the  patching  together  of  two 
relatively  inferior  productions. 

A  final  objection  to  treating  the  P  and  J  hypothesis 

as  if  it  were  fact  is  in  itself  sufficient:  there  may  sup- 

posably  be  other  hypotheses  equally 
Other  Supposable       i        -ii         -r^  i  •    i, 

„      ^  plausible.     For  example,  one  might  sup- 

pose the  repetitions  to  be  matters  of 
mental  habit  w^ith  the  narrator;  he  being  a  man  who, 
having  made  a  statement,  was  in  the  habit  of  repeating 
it  in  order  to  locate  additional  particulars.  Or  if  the 
problem  is  to  be  solved  on  the  assumption  that  the  nar- 
rator used  sources,  the  future  may  give  us  some  hypothe- 
sis which  shall  be  far  more  satisfactory  than  those  now 
current. 

It  is  not  illegitimate  to  hold  that  the  writer  of  the 
Bible  flood  narrative  drew  his  materials  from  sources, 
or  even  to  try  to  analyze  his  writings  with   reference 


The  Flood  Narrative  109 

to  the  sources.  But  the  cryptoagnostic  criticism  is 
not    satisfied    with    going    so    far    as    this;    it    dates 

No  Proof  of        ^^    J    sections    mostly    in    the    reign 

the  Alleged         of   Manasseh,   king  of  Judah,  and   the 

Late  Dates  P  sections  some  centuries  later.     These 

dates  are  reasonless  and  uncritical. 

II.  We  take  up  a  second  question.  Is  the  flood  nar- 
rative self-contradictory  ? 

At  this  point  we  come  sharply  into  conflict  with  the 
agnostic  and  cryptoagnostic  criticism.  In  itself  con- 
sidered, their  idea  of  the  human  proc- 

The  Importance  -^  \  -  \    r^  -j.^  j 

r  XL-  A     J.'        esses  by  which  Genesis  was  written  need 

of  this  Question  r, 

not  offend  us  overmuch;  but  it  is  a 
more  important  matter  when,  with  endless  reiteration, 
they  connect  these  processes  with  alleged  inconsisten- 
cies and  incredibilities  in  the  contents  of  the  Scriptures. 
They  have  wonderful  eyes  for  the  discovery  of  alleged 
inconsistencies  and  incredibilities ;  and  when  they  have 
discovered  them  they  marshal  them  three  times  over,  and 
compel  them  to  perform  threefold  service.  First,  they 
allege  the  inconsistencies  in  a  passage  in  proof  that  it 
came  from  different  sources.  Second,  they  adduce  the 
alleged  inconsistencies  and  incredibilities  in  proof  that 
the  testimony  of  the  Scriptures  cannot  be  depended  upon. 
Third,  they  adduce  them  again  with  the  charge  that  the 
errors  made  by  the  Scripture  writers  prove  that  they 
lived  a  long  time  after  the  events  which  they  narrate. 

At  this  point  in  our  discussion  let  us  separate  the 
question  of  consistency  from  other  questions,  not  asking 
whether  this  flood  narrative  Is  historical  or  true  or  orig- 
inal or  Inspired,  but  whether  it  Is  self -contradictory.   Sup- 


no  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticisin 

posing  it  to  be  an  account  of  actual  events,  is  it  a  con- 
gruous account?  Or,  supposing  it  to  be  fiction,  has  it 
Consistency  verisimilitude?      This    is    the    simplest 

versus  question  and  the  easiest  to  answer  with 

Other  Questions  exactness.  When  one  has  answered  it  by 
itself  Its  bearing  on  other  questions  will  be  obvious. 

It  is  alleged  that  the  J  sections  contradict  the  P  sec- 
tions in  that  they  affirm  that  Noah  distinguished  between 
clean  and  unclean  animals,  and  that  he 
Instances  worshiped  by  sacrifice.  This  alleged 
contradiction  is  not  really  between  state- 
ments made  in  the  account,  but  between  notions  based 
on  them ;  and  it  therefore  does  not  count.  No  part  of  the 
narrative  denies  that  Noah  distinguished  between  clean 
and  unclean  animials,  or  that  he  worshiped  by  sacrifice. 

It  is  alleged  that  the  J  parts  say  that  Noah  took  the 
clean  animals  into  the  ark  by  sevens,  while  the  P  parts 
say  that  he  took  them  by  twos.  But  there  is  no  con- 
tradiction in  that  as  long  as  seven  tim.es  two  are  four- 
teen. It  is  nowhere  denied  that  he  took  them  by  sevens. 
It  is  not  said  of  any  animals  that  Noah  took  only  a 
single  pair  of  them.  A  large  number  of  the  animals 
suitable  for  food  and  sacrifice  would  be  needed.  No 
difficulty  is  presented  even  if  one  understands  that  in 
the  case  of  such  animals  as  cattle  and  sheep  the  ratio 
of  males  to  females  was  dififerent  from  that  in  the  case 
of  the  mating  animals.  Look  at  it  as  you  will,  there  is 
no  contradiction. 

Again  it  is  alleged  that  according  to  J  the  flood  lasted 
forty  days  (7  :  4),  while  according  to  P  the  waters  in- 
creased for  a  hundred  and  fifty  days  (7  :  24;  8  :  3),  and 


The  Flood  Narrative  iii 

the  whole  time  of  living  in  the  ark  was  a  year  and  ten 
days  (7  :  11;  8  :  14).  But  the  forty  days  is  spoken 
of  in  P  also,  for  there  is  no  sense  in  tearing  7  :  12  and 
17  away  from  their  context  merely  for  the  purpose  of 
making  out  a  case  of  contradiction.  The  fact  is  that 
the  account  mentions  two  sources  whence  came  the  water 
of  the  deluge;  namely,  the  rain  and  the  breaking  up  of 
the  fountains  of  the  great  deep  (7:11).  It  says  that 
after  the  forty  days  of  rain  the  water  continued  to  rise 
in  the  region  where  the  ark  was.  It  is  not  certain  that 
the  account  says  that  the  ark  was  really  afloat  till  the 
close  of  the  forty  days  (7  :  17).  In  all  this  there  is 
no  contradiction  between  the  differing  parts  of  the 
narrative. 

There  is  no  need  of  mentioning  other  allegations  in 
detail ;  the  same  result  would  emerge  in  every  case.  There 
are  no  two  statements  in  the  narrative  that  may  not 
easily  be  so  understood  as  to  be  in  agreement. 

Granting,  however,  as   every  intelligent  person  must 
grant,  that  there  are  no  necessarily  contradictory  state- 
ments  in  this   narrative,   are   there  not 
Inconsistencies  by  ,  1,1  1,1.1 

J  .         .  ^  reasons  why  we  should  understand  the 

statements  as  having  inconsistent  mean- 
ings? Against  so  understanding  them  is  the  natural 
presumption  in  the  case.  And  certain  serious  facts  are 
also  against  it.  Assuming  that  we  have  here  the  nar- 
ratives of  two  authors  put  together  by  a  third,  it  is 
evident  that  this  third  author  saw  no  contradiction  in 
those  parts  of  his  sources  which  he  used;  and  his  judg- 
ment in  the  matter  is  worthy  of  respect.  That  he  was 
a  m.an  of  ability  is  vouched  for  by  the  fact  that  his  work 


112  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

still  survives  and  commands  attention.  We  have  only 
those  parts  of  his  sources  which  he  copied  out  for  us, 
while  he  had  the  sources  in  more  complete  form.  Doubt- 
less he  had  other  sources  not  now  accessible.  These  are 
reasons  for  not  forcing  upon  the  narrative  an  interpreta- 
tion contrary  to  his,  and  contrary  to  the  natural  meanings 
of  the  words.  But  without  such  forced  interpretation 
there  are  no  contradictions  to  be  found  in  it.  If  it  is 
history,  it  is  congruous  history.  If  it  is  fiction,  it  is  per- 
fect in  verisimilitude. 

III.  Our  third  question  is  whether  the  flood  narrative 
is  true. 

Separating  the  question  of  its  truthfulness  from  the 

question  whether  it  is  history,  is  the  narrative  true  in 

the  sense  in  which  it  was  intended  to 

n  «#      •  ^     be   understood?      It   is   important   here 

Proper  Meaning  .  ^      . 

to  recognize  three  alternative  views,  and 
not  two  only.  The  account  may  supposably  be  either 
true  statement  of  fact,  or  false  statement  of  fact,  or  re- 
ligious fiction.  Here  is  a  bit  of  common  ground  where 
persons  of  differing  views  may  stand  side  by  side.  We 
all  hold  that  the  great  value  of  the  narrative  is  its  re- 
ligious value.  If  we  take  the  story  just  as  it  stands,  and 
look  for  its  religious  and  ethical  values,  we  shall  so  far 
forth  mainly  agree,  even  though  some  of  us  count  the 
story  as  fact  and  others  as  parable.  Divided  as  we  are 
on  certain  important  points,  here  is  a  modus  vivendi 
which  we  ought  not  to  neglect. 

The  Babylonian  and  Israelitish  flood  stories  have  too 
much  in  common  to  be  wholly  independent.  The  usual 
order  in  the  reworking  of  religious  stories  is  from  the 


The  Flood  Narrative  113 

simple  to  the  grotesque,  and  from  the  grotesque  to  the 

more  grotesque,  and  not  the  contrary.     Under  this  law 

one  would  infer  that  the  biblical  form 
Babylonian  and       r  ^i         ^      •        •  •    •      i   ^i  ,  i 

I      lit   St    *  stones  IS  more  origmal  than  the 

Babylonian.  But  even  if  we  sup- 
pose the  contrary  to  be  the  fact,  if  a  prophet  took  the 
grotesque  polytheistic  Babylonian  stories  and  reduced 
them  to  the  sober  monotheistic  simplicity  of  the  biblical 
narrative,  he  accomplished  a  work  worthy  of  one  inspired 
by  God.  Call  the  account  what  you  will,  if  you  regard  it 
as  designed,  like  the  parables  of  Jesus,  for  religious  teach- 
ing, it  is  not  absurd  to  say  that  the  Holy  Spirit  may  have 
inspired  the  writing  of  such  a  story,  or  may  have  in- 
spired a  writer  of  Scripture,  having  found  a  suitable 
story,  to  incorporate  it  as  a  part  of  the  Scriptures, 

With  this  definition  of  truthfulness,  the  recognition  of 
the  consistency  of  the  flood  narrative  necessitates  our 
Consistency       accepting  it  as  true.      Fair  dealing  re- 
Implies  quires  that  we  take  into  the  account  the 
Truthfulness       extreme   brevity    of    the   narrative,    not 
holding   the   writer   responsible    for   facts    that   he   has 
omitted,  nor  for  ideas  that  we  supply  by  inference.     All 
alleged  proofs  of  falsity  vanish  when  we  deal  with  them 
fairly.    The  charge  of  untruthfulness  will  not  stand.  The 
story  is  not  falsified  fact  or  aimless  folklore.     Either  it 
is  a  true  record  of  facts  or  it  is  religious  parable,  true 
in  the  meaning  in  which  it  was  intended.     Surely  the 
cryptoagnostic  Is  inexcusable  if  he  fails  to  see  this. 

IV.  We  have  one  more  question  to  ask:  Is  the  flood 
narrative  historical?  Is  it  a  correct  account  of  events 
that  actually  occurred? 


1 1 4  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

There  is  a  chronological  difficulty  that  is  genuine.  The 
account  says  that  Noah  was  six  hundred  years  old  when 

jj^g  the    flood    began,    and   lived    afterward 

Chronological      three    hundred    and    fifty    years    (Gen. 

Difficulty  7  :  ii;  9  :  28).     These  numerals,  with 

those  in  Genesis  5  and  11  :  10-26,  have  been  commonly 
regarded  as  a  chronological  scheme  for  the  world's  his- 
tory before  Abraham.  On  this  scheme  Ussher  dates  the 
flood  B.  C.  2349.  If  the  names  in  these  tables  are  simply 
those  of  individuals,  their  longevity  is  not  an  easy  matter 
to  explain.  And  further,  it  is  now  commonly  held  that 
we  know  enough  of  the  history  of  the  flood  region  to 
make  us  sure  that  no  such  catastrophe  occurred  there 
within  some  thousands  of  years  of  that  date. 

I  should  not  reply  to  this  by  conceding  that  the  num- 
bers in  Genesis  are  false.  In  the  present  state  of  our  in- 
formation, however,  it  seems  to  me  probable  that  these 
lists  originally  had  a  meaning  which  we  have  now  lost. 
There  are  reasons  for  thinking  that  they  were  not  in- 
tended to  be  understood  biographically  and  chronologic- 
ally, but  rather  as  tabulations  of  ethnical  movements.  If 
we  some  time  recover  their  meaning,  they  will  probably 
not  stand  in  the  way  of  our  regarding  the  flood  as  his- 
torical. 

The  flood  story  presents  an  elaborate  scheme  of  dates 

by  months  and  days.     Some  regard  this  as  proving  that 

the  story  is  a  year-myth,  and  therefore 

AYear-Myth?  not  historical.  The  phenomena  might 
supposably  have  this  significance;  that 
they  actually  have  it  is  a  baseless  assumption. 

On  the  other  hand,  in  view  of  the  well-nigh  universal 


The  Flood  Nari^ative  115 

prevalence  of  traditions  concerning  the  flood,  and  in  view 
of  the  agreement  of  these  with  the  geological  history 
of  our  planet,  perhaps  no  one  will  dispute  the  probability 
of  an  original  nucleus  of  fact  lying  back  of  the  tradi- 
tions. If  one  admits  this,  and  then  observes  the  con- 
sistency and  verisimilitude  of  the  Bible  narrative,  com- 
paring it  with  the  other  flood  stories  of  the  nations,  he 
will  hesitate  before  denying  that  in  this  particular  ac- 
count the  facts  are  correctly  given. 

There  is  nothing  very  incredible  in  the  idea  that  the 
biblical  form  of  the  story  may  be  more  original  than 
the  Babylonian,  or  even  may  have  been 
omp^e  e  handed  down  from  Noah  himself.  It 
is  sober  and  circumstantial,  and  ap- 
parently from  the  point  of  view  of  one  taking  observa- 
tions from  the  deck  of  the  ark.  The  difficulty  of  think- 
ing that  so  ancient  a  writer  would  invent  fiction  of  just 
this  type  is  greater  than  the  difliculties  of  regarding  the 
story  as  fact.  If  from  archeology  and  physical  geog- 
raphy we  should  some  time  obtain  additional  informa- 
tion concerning  the  great  catastrophe,  it  will  probably 
not  contradict  the  information  given  in  Genesis.  Judging 
from  the  evidence,  one  must  pronounce  the  flood  nar- 
rative not  only  true  but  historical. 

Concerning  the   Bible   account  of   the   flood,   see   the 

literature  mentioned  at  the  close  of   Chapter  V.     For 

the  parallel  Babylonian  accounts,  see  at 

Literature        close  of  Chapter  VII.     For  a  collection 

of    ethnical    traditions    concerning    the 

deluge,   or  deluges,   see   "The   Book  of   Genesis   in  the 

Light  of  Modern  Knowledge,"  by  Dr.  Elwood  Worcester. 


CHAPTER  IX 


THE  NARRATIVE  CONCERNING  ABRAHAM 


Introductory' :  Sources  of  the  narrative.  Different  opinions. 
Our  common  inadequate  understanding  of  the  narrative. 
The  magnitude  of  the  patriarchal  events.  Other  points  that 
are  misunderstood.  The  account  of  Abraham  given  in  Gene- 
sis is  biographically  true.  i.  There  is  no  one  plausible  oppos- 
ing theory.  2.  The  narrative  is  free  from  grotesque  elements. 
3,  It  is  free  from  soberly  incredible  statements.  The  ages 
of  the  patriarchs.  Their  communicating  with  Deity.  Per- 
sonalized history.  4.  It  is  free  from  inconsistencies.  5. 
Abraham  as  a  character  is  genuinely  realistic.  6.  The  Ham- 
murabi environment  for  Abraham.  The  chronology  cleared 
up.  Contemporaneous  Babylonian  events.  Semitic  migra- 
tions. Order  of  synchronism.  Abraham  and  the  laws  of 
Hammurabi.  7.  Testimony  of  the  final  authors  of  Genesis, 
and  of  the  witnesses  in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments. 
Literature. 


The  old-fashioned  idea  concerning  Abraham  is  that 
he  was  a  historical  person,  and  that  the  account  in  Gene- 
sis is  correct  biography.  Agnostic  criticism  counts  him 
a  mere  myth.  Between  these  two  limits  range  the  va- 
rious cryptoagnostic  theories. 

Under  the  older  tradition  students  noticed  differences 

in  the  different  narratives  concerning  Abraham,  but  did 

not  study  the  differences  very  carefully. 

Sources  of  the     ^^^^  ^^^  ^^  ^^^  ^^^^  tradition  hold  that 

Narrative 

our  present  account  was  made  by  piec- 
ing together  four  or  more  earlier  writings,  each  of  them 
already  more  or  less  composite. 
116 


The  Narrative  Co7icerning  Abraham     117 

The  four  alleged  sources  are  those  which  they  designate 
as  J  and  E  and  P,  together  with  an  additional  document 
used  in  the  fourteenth  chapter  of  Genesis.  As  has  al- 
ready been  said  more  than  once  in  the  present  volume, 
this  analysis  is  not  so  objectionable  in  itself  as  it  is  on 
account  of  the  impugnment  of  the  Scripture  statements 
by  its  advocates.  They  allege  that  the  record  is  full  of 
inconsistencies  and  misrepresentations,  and  on  this  they 
base  the  proof  of  their  three  propositions — that  the 
record  was  made  from  conflicting  sources,  that  it  was 
made  so  late  that  its  authors  could  not  know  the  facts 
in  the  case,  that  in  fact  the  record  is  unhistorical. 

In  some  of  their  aspects  the  differences  of  view  con- 
cerning Abraham  are  exceedingly  important.    If  we  take 
the  wrong  side  we  shall  have  a  wrong 
Appraisal  of  ^.^^  ^^  ^^^^  ^j^^j^  history  of  the  religion 

these  Differences       ,    ,.  ,  ,         x      •  i  ^^     ^ 

of  Jehovah.     It  is  true,  however,  that 

the  Spirit  of  God  may  supposably  teach  us  through  fic- 
tion as  well  as  through  fact.  Many  of  the  lessons  from 
the  story  of  Abraham  do  not  depend  on  the  question 
whether  the  story  is  fact  or  fiction.  It  might  be  a  mis- 
take for  you  to  exhaust  your  energies  in  trying  to  settle 
this  question.  It  may  be  wiser  to  leave  the  question  open 
and  begin  by  mastering  the  contents  of  the  narrative  as 
it  stands.  By  this  procedure  you  will  accomplish  two 
things.  You  will  get  for  yourself  the  lessons  taught  by 
the  story  as  a  story,  and  you  will  make  the  best  possible 
preparation  for  settling  any  questions  that  arise  as  to  its 
character. 

The  mastery  of  these  contents  may  require  more  in- 
tellectual effort  than  some  imagine.    Do  not  rest  content 


ii8  Reaso7iable  Biblical  Criticism 

with  the  notion  that  you  already  understand   them.     I 
do  not  beheve  that  they  were  transmitted  to  the  bibhcal 
A  Current  writers  in  the  form  of  folklore ;  but  they 

Inadequate  have  been   transmitted   to   many   of   us 

Understanding  in  that  form.  Very  few  of  us  learned 
them  originally  from  our  printed  Bibles.  We  received 
them  orally,  and  with  much  ornamentation,  when  we  were 
little  children,  from  persons  who  had  received  them  in 
the  same  way  back  through  untold  generations.  When 
we  came  to  read  them  v/e  read  into  the  text  the  mean- 
ings we  had  learned  through  the  oral  transmission.  In 
more  respects  than  we  imagine  our  traditional  under- 
standing differs  from  the  printed  account. 

For  example,  we  picture  the  course  of  events  wrongly 
if  we  start  with  a  wrong  conception  of  the  scale  of  the 
The  Magnitude  movement  when  Abraham  migrated  to 
of  the  Canaan.     If  we  think  of  him  as  coming 

Patriarchal  Events  with  perhaps  a  score  of  servants  and  re- 
tainers we  shall  have  ideas  of  the  affair  v^^hich  will  pres- 
ently become  confused.  The  Bible  account  is  that  Abra- 
ham had  dependants,  "those  born  in  the  house  and  those 
bought  with  money  of  a  foreigner"  (Gen.  17  :  27  and 
elsewhere),  that  is,  inherited  retainers  and  servants 
acquired  by  purchase.  From  his  homeborn  followers, 
as  distinguished  from  those  whom  he  had  purchased,  he 
raised  at  one  time  318  men  for  a  military  expedition 
(Gen.  14  :  14).  It  follows,  according  to  the  Bible  ac- 
count, that  he  was  at  the  head  of  a  population  of  several 
thousand  people.  If  you  accustom  yourself  to  thinking 
of  the  experiences  of  the  patriarchs  on  the  scale  thus  indi- 
cated, you  will  find  the  accounts  much  more  intelligible. 


The  Narrative  Co^icerning  Abraham     1 1 9 

The  Bible  account  declares  that  all  these  were  united 
with  Abraham  in  the  covenant  of  circumcision  (Gen.  17). 

They  were  ancestors   of  the   Israelitish 
Other  Points  that        ^^^^^       ^^^    g.^j^    ^^^^    ^^^  ^^^^^ 

are  Misunderstood    ^      ^  .  -^ 

Abraham  was  their  father  ni  the  sense 

of  being  the  lineal  progenitor  of  them  all.  Many  persons 
delight  to  think  of  Abraham  and  Isaac  and  Jacob  as 
''nomads" ;  then  they  somewhere  get  ideas  as  to  the  habits 
of  nomads,  and  import  those  ideas  into  their  interpreta- 
tion of  the  biblical  narrative.  It  is  important  to  observe 
that  the  Bible  does  not  say  that  they  were  nomads ;  it 
represents  them  as  combining  agriculture  wath  the  rais- 
ing of  cattle  and  sheep  (Gen.  26  :  12  and  30  :  14;  cf. 
21  :  2)Z)^  ^s  having  in  many  particulars  a  somewhat 
advanced  civilization.  In  the  revelations  made  to  Abra- 
ham we  are  prone  to  think  of  God  as  uniformly  assuming 
a  human  shape.  We  have  in  detail  (Gen.  18)  an  account 
of  one  manifestation  of  this  kind.  Was  this  one  instance 
exceptional  or  typical?  The  narrative  gives  no  answer 
to  this  question. 

Lay  aside  your  baby  ideas  of  the  matter,  and  your 
theories,  and  learn  from  the  Bible  text  just  what  the  story 
of  Abraham  is.  This  is  worth  doing  for  its  own  sake, 
and  until  you  have  done  it  you  are  not  qualified  to  dis- 
cuss other  questions   concerning  Abraham. 

That  the  account  in  Genesis  of  Abraham  is  a  truthful 
collection  of  materials  for  genuine  biography  appears 
from  such  considerations  as  the  following : 

I.  There  is  no  opposing  theory  that  holds  the  field. 
Those  who  deny  that  the  narrative  is  fact  are  not  agreed 
as  to  what  it  is.     Some  hold  that  it  is  strictly  mvthical, 


120  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

Abraham   being   originally    the    name    of    a    tribal   god. 
Others  make  it  a  personified  tradition  of  prehistoric  move- 
ments of  tribes.     Cheyne  says   (Encyc. 

Consensus"  ^^^''  ^'  ^^^  ^^^^  there  are  those  who 
'Vould  throw  aside  that  story  as  an  out- 
worn and  useless  myth."  He  thinks  that  there  may  pos- 
sibly be  "a  kernel  of  tradition  in  the  narrative,"  to  the 
extent  that  there  may  perhaps  have  been  a  legendary  hero 
named  Abraham,  in  some  way  connected  with  Hebron, 
but  having  no  relations  "with  Jacob  or  Israel."  His  own 
theory  is  that  with  the  earliest  Hebrew  writers  Abraham 
"was  not  so  much  a  historical  personage  as  an  ideal  type 
of  character."  "A  school  of  writers  .  .  .  devoted 
themselves  to  elaborating  a  typical  example  of  that  un- 
worldly goodness  which  was  rooted  in  faith,  and  fer- 
vently preached  by  the  prophets."  Dr.  Ryle  says  (Die. 
of  Bib.,  I.  15)  that  the  accounts  now  found  in  Genesis 
"have  preserved  the  historical  facts  of  the  remote  past 
in  a  form  in  which  personal  details  are  inextricably  in- 
tertwined with  racial  movements,  and  .  .  .  the  des- 
tinies of  a  future  nation  are  anticipated  in  the  features 
of  family  experience." 

These  several  views  are  as  contradictory  each  to  the 
other  as  they  are  to  the  view  that  the  story  of  Abraham 
is  biographical.  If  the  story  is  a  myth  of  the  moon-god, 
then  it  is  not  a  personified  legendary  history  of  early 
Semitic  tribes.  If  it  is  either  of  these  it  is  not  religious 
parable  for  the  presentation  of  prophetic  ideals.  The  fact 
that  these  differing  theories  are  held  proves  that  the  men 
who  hold  them  do  not  know  of  any  type  of  folklore  with 
which  the  story  of  Abraham  can  properly  be  classed. 


The  Narrative  Concerning  Abraham     121 

There  is  good  reason  for  this.     The  story  has  not  the 
marks  of  folklore ;  it  has  the  marks  of  fact. 

2.  The  narrative  in  Genesis  bears  the  marks  of  fact  and 
not  of  folklore  in  its  freedom  from  grotesque  elements. 

The  Account        Every  one  is  familiar  with  folklore  in 
Free  from  some     shape — Mother      Goose,      Uncle 

Grotesqueness  Remus,  the  tales  of  the  Greek  and 
Roman  classics,  Tanglewood  Tales,  the  Nibelungen 
Lied,  the  latest  translation  of  the  legends  of  Finland,  the 
stories  in  Professor  Fiske's  "Myths  and  Mythmakers"  or 
other  works  of  the  kind.  Think  them  over,  fairy  tales, 
children's  tales,  myth,  saga,  legend,  or  what  not.  Is  not 
the  grotesque  an  unfailing  element  in  them  all?  Can 
you  reduce  them  to  the  form  of  simple  and  sober  state- 
ment of  fact  without  emptying  them  of  their  interest? 
Many  of  them  are  exquisitely  human  in  places,  but  pres- 
ently they  yield  to  the  natural  tendency  to  distortion. 
The  story  of  Abraham  lacks  this  fundamental  character- 
istic of  folklore ;  there  is  humor  and  pathos  and  the  mar- 
velous in  it,  but  it  is  at  no  point  grotesque. 

3.  Equally  it  is  free  from  soberly  incredible  statements. 
The  affirmations  which  give  rise  to  the  most  difficulty 

are  those  concerning  the  ages  of  Abraham  and  the  mem- 
bers of  his   family.     The  account  says 
th  %  t***  ^  h      ^^^  ^^  lived  to  be   175  years  old,  and 
Isaac  to  be   180,  and  Jacob  to  be   147. 
Isaac  and  Esau  were  each  40  years  old  at  his  marriage, 
and  Jacob  still  older.     Abraham  raised  a  second  family 
of  children  after  he  was  137  years  old.     Sarah  was  a 
fascinating  woman  at  the  age  of  65  and  older.    The  idea 
of  the  writer  who  gives  us  these  numbers  evidently  is  that 


122  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

the  stock  of  Abraham  was  exceptionally  robust,  long- 
lived,  and  slow-maturing.  Why  should  we  deny  the  pos- 
sibility that  he  is  correct?  And  even  if  one  fails  to 
satisfy  himself  in  regard  to  the  numerals,  that  is  not 
sufficient  to  invalidate  the  whole  history. 

Even  the  most  extreme  agnostic  will  not  count  it  in- 
credible  that  Abraham  may  have   regarded   himself   as 

conscious    of    having    revelations    from 
'th  D  't  Deity,  or  even  of  having  interviews  with 

Deity  manifested  in  human  form.  No 
phenomena  are  better  attested  than  those  in  which  men 
regard  themselves  as  being  in  communication  with  the 
Supreme  Being.  And  a  person  is  very  extreme  in  his 
agnosticism  if  he  doubts  that  phenomena  of  this  kind, 
however  he  may  account  for  them,  sometimes  have  a 
basis  in  reality.  It  follows  that  when  the  Genesis  nar- 
rative represents  Abraham  as  frequently  conscious  of 
communication  with  Deity,  that  is  no  argument  against 
its  truthfulness  to  fact.  At  most  it  indicates  that  the 
narrative  deals  with  facts  concerning  which  there  is  a 
difference  of  understanding  between  agnostics  and 
believers. 

Those  who  deny  that  the  biblical  statements  concern- 
ing Abraham  are  true   to   fact   make  much   of   certain 

theories  of  personalized  history.     They 
Personalized  ^^^^   ^^^    Statements    are    distorted 

History  ,  •  .  •  i     • 

traditions    concerning    the    relations    of 

tribes  and  clans,  put  into  personal  form.  That  the  nar- 
rative includes  traditions  concerning  the  early  move- 
ments and  interrelations  of  various  peoples  is  of  course 
true.     It  is  further  true  that  the  traditions  express  the 


The  N^arrative  Concerning  Abraham     123 

Israelitish  sense  of  the  inferiority  of  the  Aramaeans  and 
of  Ishmael  and  Moab  and  Ammon  and  Midian.  But 
even  if  one  should  admit  that  these  ethnical  matters  are 
partly  romance,  that  would  not  compel  him  to  regard  the 
biography  of  Abraham  as  also  romance.  Our  American 
Pocahontas  was  an  actual  woman,  notwithstanding  all  the 
romancing  about  her  Indian  relatives.  The  biography  of 
Abraham  is  as  easily  detachable  from  the  alleged  romance 
as  that  of  Pocahontas.  It  is  not  true  that  the  ''racial 
movements"  "are  inextricably  intertwined  with"  the  "per- 
sonal details." 

What  proof  is  there,  however,  that  even  the  traditions 
concerning  kindred  clans  are  unhistorical?  Abraham 
is  presented  to  us  as  belonging  to  a  stock  distinguished 
for  the  ability  of  its  members.  Is  there  anything  incred- 
ible in  that  ?  Why  should  it  not  be  true  that  one  or  more 
of  the  members  who  remained  in  Haran  were  heads  of 
clans  ?  Why  should  it  not  be  true  that  Ishmael,  with  the 
help  of  his  distinguished  father,  gathered  around  him  a 
following,  and  became  the  "father,"  that  is  to  say,  the 
founder,  of  a  tribe  or  tribes  ?  Why  should  it  not  be  true 
that  Moab  and  Ammon  and  Midian,  being  actual  persons, 
did  the  same?  Once  get  rid  of  the  babyish  idea  that 
the  "father"  of  a  clan  is  its  lineal  progenitor,  and  there  is 
no  reason  for  denying  that  the  racial  traditions  connected 
with  Abraham  are  essentially  authentic,  the  coloring  in 
them  being  only  that  which  belongs  to  Oriental  habits 
of  speech. 

4.  The  freedom  of  the  narrative  from  inconsistencies 
is  a  further  mark  of  its  being  fact  and  not  folklore. 

Inconsistency    is    a    characteristic    mark    of    folklore 


124  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

stories.  The  story  of  Abraham  as  told  in  Genesis  has  not 
this  mark.  The  attempts  to  place  the  mark  upon  it  by 
interpretation  are  both  unfair  and  exe- 
Ar?ument°  "  getically  bad.  On  the  theory  that  the 
existing  narrative  was  made  by  combin- 
ing four  earlier  narratives,  the  absence  of  contradictions 
is  natural  provided  the  earlier  stories  were  true  to  fact, 
but  if  they  were  not  true  it  is  so  remarkable  as  to  be  well- 
nigh  miraculous. 

Of  course  there  are  charges  of  inconsistency.  In  sup- 
port of  the  folklore  theories  strenuous  efforts  are  made 
to  prove  that  the  alleged  earlier  stories  were  in  conflict, 
and  that  the  present  narrative  is  self-contradictory,  but 
the  confliction  is  in  every  case  merely  conjectural.  It  is 
said,  for  example,  that  P  affirms  that  Abraham  came  from 
Ur  (Gen.  ii  :  31),  while  J  affirms  that  he  came  from 
Haran  (Gen.  12  :  i,  4;  24  :  4;  cf.  Deut.  26  :  5  ;  Josh.  24  : 
2-3,  14-15).  But  none  of  these  passages  deny  that  Abra- 
ham came  from  Ur  to  Haran ;  and  his  coming  from  Ur 
is  twice  mentioned  in  the  present  text  of  Genesis,  in  sec- 
tions that  are  assigned  to  J  (11  :  28;  15  :  7).  In  this 
and  other  instances  the  parts  of  the  evidence  are  not  in 
contradiction  until  they  have  been  manipulated  in  order 
to  make  them  so.  Not  one  of  the  alleged  inconsistencies 
remains  if  you  interpret  the  narrative  in  the  same  kindly 
way  in  which  you  expect  men  to  interpret  your  own  state- 
ments of  fact.  Test  the  instances  for  yourself,  and  you 
will  be  sure. 

5.  The  narrative  shows  itself  to  be  fact,  and  not  folk- 
lore, in  its  representation  of  Abraham  as  a  human  char- 
acter.   He  appears  as  a  man,  with  human  weaknesses  and 


The  Narrative  Concerning  Abraham     125 

also  with  manly  strength,  natural  yet  many-sided,  per- 
sistently and  consistently  human.  As  a  character  in  litera- 
Abrahama  *^^^  ^e  is  among  the  few  that  are 
Realistic  greatest.    He  is  not  in  the  least  like  the 

Personality  characters  in  folklore.  They  are  originally 
either  grotesque  or  merely  mechanical  or  narrowly  one- 
sided. We  must  abstain  from  details,  but  this  considera- 
tion is  in  itself  conclusive.  The  petty  processes  of  folklore 
never  created  such  a  personality  as  Abraham.  Such  a  per- 
sonality gets  a  place  in  literature  only  in  one  of  two  ways ; 
either  he  actually  existed,  or  he  is  the  product  of  the 
creative  imagination  of  some  great  genius.  No  one,  not 
even  Dr.  Cheyne,  regards  Abraham  as  the  creation  of 
some  great  genius.  He  is  certainly  a  person  who  actually 
lived. 

6.  Of  comparatively  recent  date  is  the  recovery  of  cer- 
tain historical  facts  which  give  reality  to  our  ideas  con- 
cerning the  environment  of  Abraham.  These  facts 
center  in  the  name  of  Hammurabi,  who  is  commonly 
identified  with  the  "Amraphel  king  of  Shinar"  of  the 
fourteenth  chapter  of  Genesis. 

Until  the  publication  in  1907  of  Dr.  King's  "Chron- 
icles Concerning  Early  Babylonian  Kings,"  our  knowl- 
edge concerning  the  relations  of  Abra- 

xL^^u      ^1  ^     ham   and   Hammurabi   was   blocked  by 
the  Chronology  ...  . 

chronological  difficulties.      According  to 

the  biblical  data  Abraham  came  to  Canaan  somewhere 
about  B.  C.  1900,  while  the  Assyrian  chronology  dated  the 
long  reign  of  Hammurabi  three  and  a  half  centuries 
earlier.  There  was  a  theory  for  harmonizing  the  facts, 
but  it  was  only  a  theory.    Dr.  King  has  proved  by  facts 


126  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

that  the  theory  was  substantially  correct.  Among  the 
data  is  the  record  of  the  so-called  "second  dynasty," 
which  reigned  in  Babylonia  368  years,  and  along  with 
this  record  certain  Assyrian  long  numbers.  It  is  now 
known  that  the  "second  dynasty"  was  contemporaneous 
with  other  dynasties.  Deducting  the  368  years,  the  date 
of  Hammurabi  is  brought  down  from  the  twenty-third 
century  B.  C.  to  the  twentieth. 

This  agrees  with  the  biblical  data,  but  many  are  say- 
ing that  this  agreement  is  purchased  at  the  cost  of  a 
sharp  disagreement  later  on.  The  Assyrian  long  num- 
bers call  for  700  years  between  Hammurabi  and  Burna- 
buriash,  a  Babylonian  king  who  was  in  correspondence 
with  Egypt  some  generations  before  Moses ;  while  the 
biblical  data  as  traditionally  interpreted  make  the  interval 
between  Abraham  and  Moses  only  430  years.  This  al- 
leged contradiction,  however,  vanishes  when  you  observe 
that  the  "second  dynasty"  came  within  these  700  years, 
so  that  the  368  years  are  to  be  deducted  here  as  well  as 
in  determining  the  date  of  Hammurabi. 

There  is  no  longer  room  for  doubt  that  the  date  as- 
signed by  the  Scriptures  to  Abraham  corresponds  with 
that  assigned  by  the  Assyrian  chronologers  to  Ham- 
murabi.    (See  Chapters  XIV  and  XVII.) 

We  first  find  Abraham  in  Ur  of  the  Chaldees.  The 
data  for  exact  synchronisms  are  lacking,  but  it  is  prob- 
Abraham  and  ^^^  that  his  migration  to  Haran  and 
BabyloniaLn  his  migration  from  there  to  Canaan  both 
Events  occurred  within  the  long  reign  of  Ham- 

murabi. In  the  earlier  part  of  that  reign  an  Elamitic 
power  held  Ur  in  subjection,  and  claimed  suzerainty  over 


The  Narrative  Concerning  Abraham     127 

Canaan.  Later,  Hammurabi  made  himself  suzerain  to 
Elam  and  all  its  dependencies.  Ur  was  the  seat  of  an 
elaborate  civilization  and  a  magnificent  religious  cult. 
There,  as  in  Canaan  later,  Abraham  and  his  kindred  were 
doubtless  men  who  combined  agriculture  with  the  keep- 
ing of  cattle  and  sheep.  His  kindred,  and  possibly  Abra- 
ham himself,  were  polytheists  in  Haran  (Josh.  24  :  2, 
3,  14,  15),  and  therefore  probably  in  Ur. 

Migrations  were  a  common  thing  with  the  Semites  of 

that  time.    To  his  contemporaries  the  migrating  Abraham, 

seemed    to    be    doing   only   what   many 

ff."***'?  others   had   done.     His   movement   dif- 

Migrations  .... 

fered  from  others  mamly  m  its  motive. 

Somehow  he  had  become  convinced  that  Jehovah  desired 
him  to  move  to  the  far  west  on  the  Mediterranean,  and 
that  if  he  did  so  consequences  would  follow  that  would 
benefit  all  men.  We  have  no  details  as  to  how  the  mes- 
sage came  to  him.  Providential  indications,  the  local 
situation  and  politics,  may  have  entered  into  the  revela- 
tion by  which  the  mind  of  Deity  was  made  known.  At 
all  events,  so  the  record  says,  he  first  joined  in  a  large 
migration  of  his  kindred  across  the  Euphrates  and  up  the 
river  to  Haran,  and  at  a  later  date  went  from  there  to 
Canaan. 

Concerning  Sodom  and  its  neighbor  cities  we  are  told 
that  "twelve  years  they  served  Chedorlaomer,  and  thir- 
teen years  they  were  in  rebellion,  and 

AnOrder  .^   fourteen   years   came   Chedorlaomer 

of  Events  ,      ,        ^  ,  ,  .  ,      ,  .     „ 

and    the    kings    that    were    with    him 

(Gen.  14  :  4).  Among  these  kings  Amraphel  is  men- 
tioned first,  having  the  precedence  of  even  Chedorlaomer. 


128  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

If  we  take  the  text  as  it  reads,  not  changing  it  to  "the 
thirteenth  year,"  it  gives  us  certain  suggestions.  The 
thirteen  years  of  rebelHon  may  have  been  made  possible 
by  the  breaking  of  the  Elamite  power  by  Hammurabi. 
Now  that  Hammurabi  is  suzerain  to  the  Elamite  king,  he 
has  an  interest  in  reinstating  his  vassal  in  Palestine.  Pos- 
sibly Abraham  waited  in  Haran  until  the  Elamite  power 
in  Canaan  was  broken,  and  then  resumed  his  journey. 
At  all  events  the  time  came  when  he  parted  with  his  kin- 
dred, recrossed  the  Euphrates,  and  reached  Canaan ; 
while  they  remained  in  Mesopotamia,  and  became  the 
Aramaean  clans  and  kingdoms  of  later  history. 

Hammurabi  has  become   one   of   the  best  known   of 

ancient  lawgivers.     We  have  much  of  his  legislation  in 

Abraham  and       ^^tail.    It  gives  a  distinct  color  of  reality 

the  Laws  of         to  the  account  to  find  Abraham,  in  cer- 

Hammurabi  tain    incidents,    minutely    following    the 

code  of  Hammurabi.    Such  incidents  are  those  connected 

with  Hagar,  and  others. 

In  fine,  we  now  know  something  of  the  historical  en- 
vironment of  the  story  of  Abraham,  and  we  know  that 
the  environment  fits  the  story.  Our  details  are  incom- 
plete, but  we  know  much  concerning  Hammurabi  and 
his  laws,  and  something  of  the  relations  then  existing 
between  Babylonia  and  Elam  and  Ur  and  Canaan  and 
Haran,  and  something  concerning  Egypt,  and  something 
concerning  Semitic  migrations.  The  political  world  in 
which  Abraham  appears  is  a  real  world,  and  not  a  mere 
creation  of  fancy.  This  does  not  by  itself  prove  that 
Abraham  was  a  real  person,  and  the  account  of  him  a  true 
account,  but  all  its  bearings  are  in  that  direction. 


The  Narrative  Concerning  Abraham      129 

7.  Finally,  the  direct  testimony  in  the  case  is  too  abun- 
dant and  respectable  to  be  neglected. 

No  one  doubts  that  the  final  authors  of  Genesis  re- 
garded Abraham  as  a  real  person,  or  that  the  Old  Testa- 
ment  writers   generally    take    the    same 

^,    ^   ^.  view.     No  one  holds  a  theory  that  the 

the  Testimony  .      -^     . 

story  of  Abraham  was  written  m  good 
faith  as  a  piece  of  religious  fiction,  for  the  sake  of  the 
lessons  it  teaches.  The  denial  of  its  historical  character 
is  a  part  of  the  general  denial  of  the  trustworthiness  of 
the  statements  of  the  Bible. 

Abraham  is  mentioned  nearly  seventy  times  by  name  in 
the  New  Testament,  nearly  twenty  times  in  the  recorded 
words  of  Jesus.  Any  one  who  will  take  a  concordance 
and  look  up  the  passages  will  be  sure  that  Jesus  and  his 
first  disciples  and  their  opponents  all  alike  thought  of 
Abraham  as  a  man,  and  not  as  a  myth.  It  is  upon 
Abraham  as  a  historical  person,  and  upon  God's  promise 
to  mankind  through  Abraham,  and  upon  the  rights  ac- 
cruing to  men  through  that  promise,  that  Jesus  and  Peter 
and  Stephen  and  Paul  build  the  whole  structure  of  their 
history  of  the  religion  of  Jehovah. 

An  illuminating  volume  on  the  conditions  into  which 
Abraham  came  in  Palestine,  and  on  the  part  which  the 

east  Mediterranean  coast  played  in  early 
Uteratnre        civilizations,     is     "Amurru,"    by     Prof. 

Albert  T.  Clay,  published  by  The  Sun- 
day School  Times  Company  in  1909.  See  "Literature" 
at  the  close  of  Chapter  XVII. 


CHAPTER  X 

THE   CASE  OF   JACOB 

Introductory:  Critical  theories.  Jacob-el.  Ethical  difficulties. 
Humor.  A  sociological  interpretation.  The  story  of  Jacob. 
It  will  take  effort  to  understand  it.  Traditional  misinter- 
pretation. Time  data.  The  numbers  misunderstood.  Their 
true  m.eaning.  The  character  of  Jacob.  Imagination  and 
feeling.  Business  qualities.  His  view  of  the  birthright. 
God's  purpose  for  Jacob.  Jacob's  wrong  attitude.  God  and 
Jacob  in  controversy.  The  pottage  and  the  blessing.  Jacob's 
experiences  with  Laban.  God's  kindness  while  chastising. 
Jacob's  surrender  of  the  controversy.  His  restitution  to 
Esau.  His  subsequent  relations  to  Esau.  Israel.  The  con- 
secutiveness  of  the  biography,  as  thus  sketched.  To  under- 
stand the  story  is  to  solve  its  difficulties.  Jacob  a  repentant 
sinner. 

The  partitioning  critics  regard  the  account  of  Jacob 
(Gen.  25  :  19  ff.)   as  made  up  mainly  of  transcriptions 

from  J  and  E,  with  brief  annotations 
Theories  from  D,  and  more  extended  annotations 

and  additions  from  P  and  from  other  late 
editorial  sources.  In  this  part  of  the  narrative  they  are 
not  so  sure  of  the  lines  of  partition  as  in  some  other 
parts.  Here  as  elsewhere  they  have  the  bad  habit  of  so 
interpreting  statements  as  needlessly  to  make  them  contra- 
dictor}^  With  great  unanimity  they  refuse  to  regard  the 
narrative  as  properly  biographical.  Some  hold  that  it  is  a 
nature-myth,  a  personalized  sketch  of  the  struggles  and 
the  victory  of  the  sun-god.  Generally,  however,  they  re- 
gard it  as  a  collection  of  personalized  and  distorted  inci- 
130 


The  Case  of  Jacob  131 

dents  illustrating  the  relations  and  the  racial  characteris- 
tics of  the  Israelitish  and  the  neighboring  peoples — 
imaginary  incidents,  though  some  of  them  may  have  had 
a  nucleus  of  fact.  Cheyne  says  (''J^cob"  in  Encyc.  Bib.) 
that  Jacob  *'is  the  name  not  of  an  individual,  but  of  the 
imaginary  ancestor  of  a  tribe."  Even  von  Orelli  ("Jacob" 
in  new  Schaff-Herzog)  says  that  "whether  and  in  what 
sense  Jacob  is  historical  may  be  a  subject  of  debate." 

The  finding  of  the  name  Jacob-el  in  Egyptian  and 
Babylonian  documents  has  been  regarded  by  some  as 
proving  that  the  biblical  Jacob  is  his- 
Jacob-el  torical,  and  by  others  as  proving  that  the 

biblical  narrative  is  false ;  but  no  con- 
nection that  would  justify  an  inference  has  yet  been  made 
out  between  these  finds  and  the  Jacob  of  the  Bible.  The 
Egyptian  records  contain  interesting  parallels  to  the  case 
of  Jacob's  descending  into  Egypt.  We  have  some  knowl- 
edge of  proper  names  and  of  geography  and  of  antiquities 
that  may  throw  incidental  light  on  the  biblical  account 
of  Jacob.  But  except  to  a  very  limited  extent  we  are 
here  dependent  exclusively  on  the  materials  found  in  the 
Bible. 

This  makes  the  less  difference  because  the  principal 
difficulties  in  the  case  of  Jacob  are  ethical.     The  critics 

who  resfard  the  story  as  legendary  claim 

The  Ethical         r        ^u-         •  4.  ^        r         a 

...    .  for   their   view   a   great   apologetic   ad- 

vantage. They  say  that  inasmuch  as 
Jacob  is  mainly  an  unreal  person,  we  need  not  trouble 
ourselves  over  his  misconduct.  But  that  does  not  neces- 
sarily follow.  If  you  hold  that  Jacob  is  an  unreal  per- 
son, invented  by  the  prophets  of  Israel  for  purposes  of 


132  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

moral  teaching,  you  make  them  responsible  for  the  char- 
acter they  have  invented,  and  this  may  supposably  make 
his  misconduct  more  objectionable  than  if  you  regard 
him  as  an  historical  person. 

Some  recent  scholars  have  something  to  say  in  regard 

to  the  element  of  humor  in  these  stories  concerning  Jacob. 

This  point  is  well  taken,  and  is  impor- 

^.       w    -  J    .     tant.     Doubtless  these  stories  were  told 
these  Incidents 

orally  among  the  ancient  Israelites,  and 
in  a  form  much  more  ample  than  that  in  which  we  have 
them;  and  doubtless  the  auditors  laughed  uproariously 
at  the  ways  in  which  Jacob  outwitted  the  men  opposed 
to  him,  even  though  he  was  sometimes  outwitted  by  them. 
If  we  recognize  the  humorous  element,  that  makes  our 
understanding  of  the  account  more  vivid,  and  thus  more 
correct. 

In  the  case  of  Jacob  the  theory  that  the  incidents  are 
personalized  sociology  is  unusually  fascinating.     If  you 

count  Jacob  as  standing  for  the  flock- 
ocio  ogica      i^eepjng  stage  of  civilization,  and  Esau 

as  standing  for  the  more  primitive  hunt- 
ing stage,  you  will  find  that  this  idea  fits  several  points 
in  the  story  remarkably  well.  The  trouble  is,  however, 
that  there  are  many  other  points  in  the  story  which  it 
does  not  fit.  All  the  points  fit  the  idea  that  the  account 
is  biographical — not  that  it  is  a  complete  and  balanced 
biography  of  Jacob  or  of  any  one  else,  but  that  it  is  made 
up  of  events  that  actually  occurred  in  the  experience  of 
actual  persons.  That  It  is  of  this  character  is  proved  by 
considerations  like  those  which  prove  the  same  thing  in 
the  case  of  Abraham. 


The  Case  of  Jacob  133 

If  you  have  doubts  in  the  matter,  do  not  begin  by 
assuming  either  that  the  narrative  is  biographical  or  that 
Begin  by  ^^  is  not ;  begin  by  making  sure  that  you 

Understanding     understand    the    story    in    the    obvious 
the  story  meaning  which  it  presents  on  its  face. 

There  is  no  part  of  the  Bible  which  more  emphatically 
illustrates  the  principle  that  the  first  thing  to  do  in  the 
case  of  a  narrative  is  to  master  its  contents.  In  the  case 
of  Jacob  this  is  not  very  difficult,  but  it  seems  to  be  a 
thing  which  few  persons  care  to  attempt.  When  the  -mis- 
sionaries told  the  story  to  our  uncivilized  European  an- 
cestors, they  accepted  it  in  the  light  of  their  own  ethical 
ideas.  To  them  Jacob's  successful  trickery  was  the  most 
admirable  thing  in  it.  No  one  knows  to  what  extent  their 
view  has  been  orally  transmitted  to  us,  but  most  of  us 
somehow  have  the  idea  that  Jacob  is  our  man,  and  that 
we  are  bound  to  defend  him.  And  so  some  persons 
defend  Jacob  by  calling  attention  to  the  fact  that  he  had 
certain  profound  and  lofty  ethical  and  religious  ideas — • 
just  as  if  this  were  not  an  aggravation  of  his  bad  con- 
duct, instead  of  a  defense!  And  others  defend  the  men 
who  told  the  Jacob  stories  by  saying  that  they  lived  in 
times  that  were  morally  less  advanced  than  ours,  and 
that  we  ought  not  to  judge  them  by  our  own  higher 
standards.  There  is  an  element  of  superficial  truth  in 
this,  but  it  covers  only  a  small  part  of  the  case. 

Let  us,  then,  make  an  effort  to  understand  the  story  as 
it  is  told  in  our  printed  Bibles — not  as  we  happen  to  re- 
member it,  but  as  it  is  told.  We  shall  find  that  it  con- 
tains some  illuminating  points  which  most  of  us  have 
been  in  the  habit  of  neglecting. 


134  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

For  the  sake  of  making  other  matters  more  inteUigible, 
look  first  at  certain  time  data.  The  account  says  that 
Jacob  was  130  years  old  when  he  went 
Time  Data  to  Egypt  (Gen.  47  :  9).  Joseph  was 
then  about  39  years  old  (Gen.  41  :  46, 
53  and  45  :  11).  It  follows  that  Jacob  was  about  91 
years  old  when  Joseph  was  born.  The  account  says 
that  he  served  Laban  20  years ;  that  he  served  14  years 
for  his  two  wives,  and  6  years  for  wages  in  cattle  (Gen. 
31  :  41  and  29  :  20,  2.J')  ;  and,  apparently,  that  the  6 
years  began  about  the  time  of  the  birth  of  Joseph.  It  is 
commonly  inferred  that  the  14  years  closed  when  the  6 
years  began ;  the  inference,  though  not  logical,  is  a  plaus- 
ible conjecture.  It  is  usual,  subtracting  the  14  years 
from  the  91,  to  infer  that  the  narrative  represents  that 
Jacob  was  about  yj  years  old  when  he  came  to  Paddan- 
aram,  and  fell  in  love  at  sight  with  his  cousin  Rachel.  On 
the  basis  of  this  computation  men  have  gone  into  the  de- 
tails, and  have  pronounced  the  story  grotesque  and  self- 
contradictory  from  beginning  to  end. 

But,  in  the  places  where  it  gives  the  numbers,  the 
narrative  does  not  say  that  the  6  years  of  service  began 
when  the  14  years  ended ;  it  leaves  open  the  question 
whether  there  may  not  have  been  an  interval  of  many 
years  between  the  two.  And  in  other  places  it  gives 
details  which  positively  settle  this  question,  proving  that 
there  was  such  an  Interval.  It  says  that  Jacob  married 
Leah  7  years  before  the  close  of  the  14  years  of  service ; 
and  that  between  that  time  and  the  birth  of  Joseph  Leah 
had  children  at  seven  or  more  different  births,  with  an 
interval  of  time  when  she  was  not  bearing  children.     It 


Tke  Case  of  Jacob  135 

says  that  before  the  last  three  births  her  son  Reuben 
was  old  enough  to  go  out  into  the  wild  country  and 
bring  home  mandrakes.  It  says  that  her  youngest  child, 
Dinah,  was  a  woman  grown  when  Jacob  returned  to 
Canaan  at  the  age  of  about  97,  and  that  Dinah's  brothers, 
Simeon  and  Levi,  were  then  warriors.  There  are  other 
similar  details.  If  we  take  the  statements  as  they  read, 
they  indicate  that  between  Jacob's  two  periods  of  service 
there  was  a  time  when  his  relations  to  Laban  were  un- 
defined, that  he  was  many  years  younger  than  J']  when 
he  went  to  Laban,  and  that  most  of  his  sons  were  of 
fighting  age  when  he  returned  to  Canaan.  With  this 
understanding  all  the  strained  features  disappear  from 
the  narrative,  and  its  naturalness  and  verisimilitude 
throughout  become  unimpeachable. 

Jacob  is  presented  to  us  as  a  man  of  strong  feeling 

and  imagination.     He  fell  in  love  with  a  young  girl,  and 

waited   for  her  seven  years,   "and  they 

J  .      ,  seemed  unto  him  but  a  few  days,  for  the 

love   he   had   to   her."     The   vision   at 

Bethel  took  such  a  hold  of  him  that  he  never  forgot  it. 

Note  the  afifectionateness  of  his  prayer  at  the  Jabbok, 

and  his  deep  tenderness  for  Joseph  and  Benjamin  (Gen. 

29  :  20;  28  :  16-17;  32  :  9-12;  37  :  3  ff.).    But  for  the 

balance  of  other  qualities  he  might  have  been  a  romantic 

idealist,  not  superficially,  but  in  the  depths  of  his  nature. 

On  the  other  hand,  he  was  a  man  of  remarkable  busi- 
ness abilities.  He  could  grasp  an  enterprise  as  a  whole, 
and  he  had  endless  skill  in  details.  He  had  the  ability 
and  the  willingness  to  endure  hardship.  He  had  such 
tenacity  of  purpose  that  even  the  vision  at  Bethel  did  not 


136  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

lead  him  to  desist  from  his  predetermined  wrong  course. 
He  had  wonderful  skill  in  handling  men  and  making  them 
serve  his  plans.  He  could  be  an  artist  in  this,  if  need 
were;  witness  his  dramatic  skill  in  the  incident  of  the 
blessing  he  gained  from  Isaac. 

There  is  no  indication  that  Jacob  was  wholeheartedly 
religious  till  comparatively  late  in  life.  Of  course,  the 
chief  value  of  the  birthright  was  really  its  religious  value, 
but  there  is  no  evidence  that  the  young  man  Jacob  thought 
much  about  this.  His  point  of  view  was  certainly  the 
business  point  of  view.  Whichever  of  the  two  brothers 
had  the  birthright  was,  next  to  Isaac,  the  chief  of  the 
tribe,  and  would  become  chief  when  Isaac  died.  Which- 
ever had  the  birthright  would  be  ''lord,"  and  the  other 
would  be  his  "servant."  This  certainly  was  the  main 
thing  with  Jacob,  though  a  man  of  his  temperament 
cannot  have  been  utterly  indifferent  to  considerations  that 
were  more  ideal. 

God  had  purposes  concerning  Jacob  and  Esau.    Before 

the  boys  were  born  he  had  made  it  known  that  "the  elder 

shall  serve  the  younger."     We  may  as- 

f  **  1'    "^^^^^     sume  that  Jacob  knew  this.    Further,  he 

knew  that  he  was  qualified  to  administer 

the  affairs  of  the  tribe,  and  that  Esau  was  not.    He  cared 

for  it  while  Esau  did  not,  and  he  had  the  abilities  for  it, 

of  which  Esau  was  destitute.     These  facts  may  palliate 

his  wrong-doing,  though  they  cannot  excuse  it. 

God  had  made  Esau  the  firstborn,  and  had  thus  put 
him  into  possession  of  the  birthright.  Jacob  was  intel- 
ligent enough  to  understand  that  the  only  thing  for  him 
to  do  was  to  wait  till  God,  by  some  equally  providential 


The  Case  of  Jacob  137 

act,  transferred  the  birthright  from  Esau  to  himself. 
Jacob  was  not  wilHng  to  wait.  Perhaps  he  got  con- 
fused over  the  idea  that  the  gods  help  those  who  help 
themselves.  He  took  the  matter  into  his  own  hands,  and 
bought  the  birthright  from  Esau  in  an  extortionate  bar- 
gain. Under  that  bargain  he  claimed  title,  while  he 
knew  and  God  knew  that  his  alleged  title  was  a  fraud. 

In  that  act  Jacob  entered  into  controversy  with  God. 
Isaac,   foreseeing  calamities   from  the  rivalship   for  the 
Jacobin  birthright,   made   his   arrangements    for 

Controversy     recognizing  Esau's  right  by  pronouncing 
with  God  a  blessing  upon  him.     Jacob  contrived, 

by  trickery  that  was  as  bad  and  mean  as  it  was  skilful, 
to  have  the  blessing  pronounced  upon  himself.  Neither 
Isaac  nor  the  narrator  express  approval  of  Jacob's  con- 
duct, though  they  recognize  the  inevitable  trend  of  affairs, 
including  the  fact  that  Jacob  will  ultimately  have  the 
birthright  blessing. 

But  God  permits  him  no  possession  under  this  title. 
He  has  to  flee  for  his  life.  Rebekah,  his  mother  and 
his  accomplice,  expects  him  to  be  absent  but  a  few  days, 
but  the  two  never  meet  again.  Jacob  spent  a  night  at 
the  old  family  place  of  worship,  near  Luz.  He  had  been 
taught  that  God  was  in  that  place,  but  that  night  he  came 
to  know  the  fact  as  he  had  never  known  it  before.  His 
vision  of  angels  ascending  and  descending  made  a  deep 
impression  upon  him,  but  he  was  stubborn;  he  did  not 
give  up  his  contention  with  God  and  his  false  claim 
against  his  brother. 

Many  years  before,  an  ambassador  with  a  princely 
retinue  had  gone  from  Abraham's  tribe  to  Paddan-aram 


138  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

to  bring  back  a  wife  for  Isaac.    Jacob's  experience  was  in 
contrast  with  this.     By  reason  of  his   wrong-doing   he 
Jacob's  went  to  Paddan-aram  a   fugitive,  help- 

Experience  less  in  the  hands  of  his  unscrupulous 
with  Laban  kinsman  Laban.  He  had  preferred  his 
way  to  God's  way,  and  God  let  him  have  enough  of  it. 
He  was  duped  into  polygamy.  His  children  were  brought 
up  by  idolatrous  mothers.  The  fourteen  years  of  service 
for  his  two  wives  expired,  and  then  Jacob  let  himself 
drift  on.  The  children  of  the  wives  whom  he  did  not 
love  were  growing  up  around  him.  Apparently  Laban 
had  dragooned  him  into  submission,  and  Jacob  did  not 
care  much  for  anything.  He  maintained  his  claim  to  the 
birthright  as  against  that  of  Esau,  and  God  kept  him  in 
discipline  for  it.  In  particular  God  made  him  feel, 
through  Laban,  how  fine  a  thing  it  is  for  kinsmen  to  take 
advantage  one  of  another. 

God  disciplined  him,  but  did  not  forsake  him.    Through 

it  all  Jacob  maintained,  however  inconsistently,  his  atti- 

God's  Kind-       ^^^^   ^^   a   worshiper  of  Jehovah.     He 

ness  while         maintained  also  his  reputation  as  a  busi- 

He  Chastises      ness  man  of  ability.     He  extended  his 

acquaintance,  and  commanded  the  kind  of  respect  which 

men  pay  to  the  person  who  can  accomplish  results.    And 

the  remembrance  of  the  vision  at  Bethel  remained  with 

him.    And  when  at  length  God  gave  him  Joseph,  the  son 

of  the  wife  whom  he  loved,  Jacob  yielded  to  the  loving 

kindness,  and  became  in  certain  ways  a  changed  man. 

We  need  not  decide  whether  he  at  once  in  his  own  mind 

surrendered   his   controversy    concerning   Esau   and   the 

birthright,  or  whether  he  gradually  came  to  that  in  the 


The  Case  of  Jacob  139 

years  that  followed.     At  all  events,  Jacob  rallied  from 

his  drifting.     He  compelled  Laban  to  make  terms  with 

him.     He  cared   for  the  property  of  Laban,   while  his 

sons  (Gen.  30  :  35-36),  of  course  under  his  supervision, 

cared  for  his  own  estate.    His  ability  and  reputation  were 

such  that  in  the  course  of  six  years  he  gathered  a  large 

property,  and  surrounded  himself  by  a  considerable  tribe. 

Then  he  started  on  his  long  delayed  return  to  Canaan. 

And  now  we  reach  a  part  of  the  narrative  which,  most 

strangely,  has  been  commonly  overlooked,  thoujh  it  is 

the    part    which    is    most    specific    and 
The  Restitution  -.111  t        1  1         ,      1  • 

.    J,  ^^  unmistakable.      Jacob     surrendered     his 

lifelong  controversy  with  God.  He 
formally  acknowledged  that  the  birthright  still  belonged 
to  Esau,  that  Esau  was  lord,  that  he  was  Esau's  servant. 
Out  of  his  property  which  he  brought  from  Mesopotamia 
he  made  a  tribute-gift  to  Esau  (Gen.  32  :  13,  18,  etc.,  the 
word  being  the  same  as  in  2  Sam.  8  :  2,  etc.),  thus  rec- 
ognizing Esau's  superiority,  with  possibly  also  some  idea 
of  restitution  for  wrongs  done  in  the  past.  The  account 
tells  us  that  when  Jacob  reached  the  Jabbok,  still  several 
days'  journey  aw^ay  from  Isaac,  he  halted  and  sent  mes- 
sengers to  Esau,  acknowledging  Esau  as  lord  and  him- 
self as  servant ;  that  when  Esau  responded  by  coming 
against  him  with  four  hundred  men  Jacob  contrived,  in 
the  most  masterly  way,  to  have  his  message  of  submis- 
sion repeated  to  Esau  several  times  while  he  was  on  the 
road;  that  when  the  two  met  Jacob  prostrated  himself 
before  Esau,  and  every  person  who  might  claim  title 
from  Jacob  joined  him  in  the  acknowledgment  that  Esau 
was  lord.     Words  could  not  be  more  specific  than  these 


140  Reaso7iable  Biblical  Criticism 

which  describe  Jacob's  surrender  of  all  claim  which  he 
had  acquired  to  the  birthright. 

The  account  of  the  subsequent  relations  of  the  two 
brothers  is  less  specific.    We  learn,  however,  that  Jacob 

dwelt  at  Hebron  (Gen.  37  :  14),  pre- 
Later  Relations  of  .  ,  •         r        .1  ^ 

Jacob  and  Esau  ^umably  caring  for  the  property  and  re- 
tainers of  Isaac ;  while  Jacob's  own 
flocks  and  retainers  were  cared  for  by  his  sons  in  the 
regions  farther  north;  that  when  Isaac  died  *'Esau  and 
Jacob  his  sons  buried  him,"  the  statement  thus  giving 
Esau  priority  over  Jacob;  that  Esau  after  Isaac's  death 
was  at  the  head  of  a  large  tribe,  and  had  great  posses- 
sions, doubtless  his  birthright  inheritance  from  Isaac, 
and  that  he  removed  with  these  "into  a  land  away  from 
his  brother  Jacob."  And  so,  when  the  time  came,  it  was 
Jacob's  tribe  and  not  Esau's  that  went  to  Egypt,  and 
multiplied  there,  and  came  under  divine  training  and 
inherited  the  promise.  Providentially  at  last  Jacob  came 
into  possession  of  the  pre-eminence  which  God  had  de- 
signed for  him,  and  which  he  had  done  so  much  to 
forfeit. 

One  other  point  in  the  narrative  must  not  be  neglected. 
When  Jacob  had  made  all  his  arrangements  for  acknowl- 
edging Esau  as  lord,  when  so  far  as  his 
Israel  intention  was  concerned  his  act  of  rep- 

aration was  complete,  Jacob  crossed  the 
ford,  and  the  Angel  wrestled  with  him  all  night,  and 
disabled  him  with  a  touch  in  the  morning  (Gen.  32  : 
22  flf.).  It  was  a  symbol  of  his  past  life.  God  had 
patiently  wrestled  with  him,  when  he  might  at  any  time 
have  disabled  him  with  a  touch.    Then  and  not  till  then 


The  Case  of  Jacob  141 

he  received  the  changed  name  Israel,  in  token  of  his 
changed  attitude  and  character.  From  that  time,  so  far 
as  the  account  shows,  Japob  was  exemplary,  though  his 
repentance  did  not  exempt  him  from  some  of  the  evil 
consequences  of  his  evil  past. 

Very  likely  you  may  heretofore  have  cherished  a  con- 
ception of  the  career  of  Jacob  different  from  that  which 

Test  the  ^^^^  ^^^^  been  sketched;  but  if  you  will 

Correctness        read    the    account    carefully,    you    will 

of  this  Sketch  probably  accept  the  sketch  as  correct. 
With  this  idea  of  the  Bible  account  of  Jacob,  observe 
how  consecutively  the  topics  arrange  themselves.  The 
subject  is  God's  purpose  with  Jacob,  and  how  he  accom- 
plished it. 

First,  the  subject  stated  and  explained  (Gen.  25  : 
19-26). 

Second,  Jacob's  unrighteous  bargain  with  Esau  (Gen. 
25  :  27-34). 

Third,  Jacob  and  Rebekah  fortify  the  unrighteous 
bargain  (Gen.  27  :  1-40% 

Fourth,  the  prime  of  Jacob's  life:  the  evil  effects  of 
the  unrighteous  bargain,  and  the  means  by  which  he  was 
providentially  kept  from  utter  perdition  (Gen.  27  :  41  to 
30  :  21). 

Fifth,  Jacob's  repentance — repentance  in  the  large, 
New  Testament  sense  (Gen.  30  :  22  to  32  :  32).  First, 
his  resumption  of  self-respect,  at  the  birth  of  Joseph 
(30  :  22  to  31  :  55)  ;  second,  his  renouncing  of  his  claim 
under  the  unrighteous  bargain,  with  such  reparation  to 
Esau  as  was  possible  (32  :  i  to  33  :  17)  ;  third,  his  self- 
surrender,  and  the  name  Israel  (32  :  24-32). 


142  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

Sixth,  Jacob's  subsequent  exemplary  life,  hampered 
and  made  tragic  by  the  bad  consequences  of  his  unright- 
eous bargain  and  his  stubborn  persistence  in  it  (Gen.  33  : 
18  to  Gen.  50). 

Such  is  the  biblical  story  of  Jacob,  provided  one  takes 
the  pains  to  grasp  it  in  a  single  view.    We  began  by  try- 
Jacob  as  a        ^^^  ^^  understand  the  story,  but  in  doing 
Repentant        that   we   have   done   much   more.      We 
Sinner  have  found  that  in  this  story  the  prophet 

authors  relate  with  approval  nothing  which  deserves  our 
disapproval.  So  far  as  this  story  shows,  the  polygamy 
and  idolatry  and  quarrels  in  Jacob's  family  are  evils  that 
came  in  the  train  of  wrong-doing.  After  long  procrasti- 
nation Jacob  at  length  surrendered  wholly  to  God; 
through  that  procrastination  he  and  Rebekah,  the  prin- 
cipal offenders,  suffered  miserably,  and  the  wretched 
consequences  extended  to  a  wide  circle,  some  of  them 
persisting  after  his  procrastination  itself  ceased. 

No  mere  human  being  is  morally  good  enough  to  be 
pleasing  to  God,  but  God  is  pleased  with  a  sinner  who 
repents.  The  Jacob  whom  the  prophets  approve,  and 
expect  their  readers  to  approve,  is  the  repentant  Jacob, 
who  has  made  reparation  for  the  wrong  he  did,  and  whose 
renewed  character  is  represented  by  the  new  name  Israel. 
Of  Jacob  so  long  as  he  remained  unrepentant,  and  of 
God's  kindness  to  him  and  God's  plans  for  him  while 
he  was  unrepentant,  we  are  to  judge  or  abstain  from 
judging  on  the  same  principles  as  in  the  case  of  other 
unrepentant  men.  In  any  case  the  ethical  difficulties  of 
the  story  have  vanished.  As  for  Jacob  himself,  he  is 
just  a  sinner  saved  by  grace. 


CHAPTER  XI 

THE    NARRATIVE    CONCERNING    JOSEPH 

Introductory:  The  story  values.  Certain  points.  I.  Personal- 
ized history.  The  "father"  of  a  people.  He  is  the  ruler  or 
the  founder.  The  secondary  Abrahamic  peoples.  Ishmael- 
ites,  the  senior  clan.  Midianites  and  Medanites  and  others, 
the  junior  clans.  The  relations  between  them  about  ninety 
years  after  Abraham's  death.  II.  Critical  treatments  of  the 
Joseph  story.  The  partition.  "Seams"  and  their  phenomena. 
Inconclusive  reasonings.  Patchwork  versus  literature.  The 
real  objection  to  some  critical  positions;  their  charge  that 
the  story  is  self-contradictory  and  untrue.  Conclusion :  No 
reason  for  crumbling  the  Joseph  story  into  inconsistent 
details. 

The  Bible  narrative  concerning  Joseph   (Gen.  37-50) 

is  surpassed  in  interest  only  by  those  concerning  Jesus. 

In  the  case  of  this  narrative,  as  in  other 

_,  ,  -.^        cases,  it  would  be  the  s^reatest  of  mis- 

Value  as  a  Story  P 

takes  to  begin  by  arguing  the  question 
v^^hether  the  story  is  true  to  fact.  The  true  way  is  to 
begin  by  understanding  the  story,  as  a  story.  Without 
this  you  are  not  equipped  for  deciding  whether  it  is  fact. 
Whether  it  is  fact  or  not,  its  greatest  value  lies  in  the 
life-lessons  it  teaches  as  a  story. 

Be  sure  that  you  know  the  story.  Do  not  be  content 
with  lazily  stirring  up  in  your  mind  such  recollections  of 
it  as  you  may  happen  to  possess.  The  idea  you  now  have 
of  the  story  may  be  inadequate  or  incorrect.  Get  it  ex- 
actly, as  it  is  in  the  printed  Bibles,  and  along  with  it  get 
the  life-lessons  which  it  properly  teaches. 

143 


144  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

However  different  our  views  may  be  at  other  points, 
we  cannot  differ  much  on  the  question  as  to  what  the 
printed  Bibles  say  concerning  Joseph.  If  you  regard 
the  events  as  imaginary  while  I  regard  them  as  actual, 
still  we  ought  to  receive  from  the  narrative  the  same 
mental  impression  of  them,  and  of  the  religious  lessons 
they  teach.  This  is  the  first  thing  to  do,  and  the  most 
important. 

In  considering  the  case  of  Jacob  we  have  found  that 
the  Bible  narrative  implies  that  there  was  an  interval  of 
a  good  many  years  between  the  fourteen  years  when 
Jacob  served  Laban  for  his  two  wives  and  the  six  years 
when  he  served  for  cattle.  When  Joseph  at  the  age  of 
six  years  came  to  the  land  of  Canaan  with  Jacob,  all  his 
older  brothers  were  of  fighting  age.  This  difference  of 
age  between  him  and  them  is  one  of  the  elements  of  veri- 
similitude in  the  story. 

Soon  after  Jacob's  return  to  Canaan  he  seems  to  have 
established  himself  at  Isaac's  headquarters  near  Hebron 
(^.  g.  Gen.  37  :  14),  while  his  own  flocks  and  herds  were 
cared  for  by  his  sons  in  the  regions  farther  north.  Joseph 
was  his  favorite  son,  and  became  an  object  of  envy  to  his 
brothers.  When  he  was  seventeen  years  old  they  sold 
him  into  Egypt,  and  the  rest  of  the  events  of  the  story 
followed. 

In  preceding  chapters  we  have  given  some  attention  to 
the  habit  which  certain  persons  have  of 

jj.  .^  interpreting  the  Bible  stories  as  folklore. 

The  form  of  folklore  known  as  per- 
sonalized history  is  to  the  front,  directly  or  indirectly,  in 
the  interpretations  of  the  Joseph  story.    In  this  and  other 


The  Narrative  Concerniiig  Joseph        145 

narratives  some  regard  the  events  not  as  incidents  that 
occurred  in  the  lives  of  certain  persons,  but  as  a  figurative 
way  of  expressing  certain  traditions  that  were  then  cur- 
rent concerning  the  relations  between  clans  or  tribes 
of  men.  People  had  the  habit,  they  say,  of  speaking  of 
clans  as  though  they  were  persons,  and  of  using  personal 
experiences  such  as  birth,  marriage,  and  the  like,  as 
figures  of  speech  to  denote  the  changes  that  occurred 
among  these  peoples. 

We  need  not  deny  that  usages  of  this  kind  have  existed 
among  men.  If  we  should  admit  that  instances  of  it 
occur  in  the  Bible,  that  would  not  necessarily  imply  that 
the  Bible  is  any  the  less  truthful,  or  any  the  less  divinely 
inspired.  Why  should  not  the  Holy  Spirit  use  this  pic- 
turesque way  of  setting  the  truth  before  men?  But  in 
fact  m"ost  of  the  Bible  narratives  are  certainly  not  per- 
sonalized history.  When  it  is  affirmed  that  any  story  or 
group  of  stories  are  personalized  history,  that  challenges 
the  question  whether  they  really  bear  the  marks  of 
being  so. 

In  the  Joseph  story  we  find  Jacob  and  his  sons,  in  par- 
ticular Joseph,  Simeon,  Judah,  Benjamin,  the  sons  of 
Bilhah,  the  sons  of  Zilpah,  these  all  in- 
.         .  eluded    in    the    central    group    of    the 

Abrahamic  peoples ;  and  also  Ishmael- 
ites,  Midianites,  Medanltes  (Gen.  37  :  36,  where  the 
English  versions  have  "Midianites") ^  a  secondary  group 
of  Abrahamic  peoples.  Either  directly  or  by  analogy 
the  Bible  represents  that  Ishmael  was  the  "father"  of 
the  Ishmaelites,  and  Midian  of  the  Midianites,  and  Medan 
of  the  Medanites,  and  each  son  of  Jacob  as  the  father 


146  Reaso7iable  Biblical  Criticism 

of  the  tribe  that  bears  his  name,  and  Jacob  himself 
as  the  father  of  all  these  tribes,  and  Abraham  as  the 
father  of  both  Israel  and  of  the  others. 

What  do  the  Bible  narrators  mean  when  they  use  the 
word  "father"  in  this  way?  Many  understand  them  to 
mean  that  all  the  members  of  the  clan  or  tribe  mentioned 
were  lineal  descendants  of  the  person  who  is  called  their 
"father."  Old-fashioned  people  understand  it  in  this 
way,  sometimes  with  the  most  mechanical  literalism. 
Persons  of  newer  views  understand  it  in  the  same  way, 
and  then  resolve  the  "father"  into  a  mere  "eponym,"  a 
creation  of  the  fancy,  located  in  the  dim  past. 

Careful  study  will  convince  you  that  this  is  not  the 
way  in  which  the  Bible  authors  ordinarily  use  this  term. 
The  father  of  a  people  is  ordinarily,  in  the  Bible,  its 
ruler  or  its  founder.  It  was  Hammurabi's  ambition  that 
persons  who  should  read  his  laws  should  regard  him  as  a 
true  father  to  his  people.  We  are  expressly  told  that  the 
people  to  whom  Abraham  was  father  were  largely  re- 
tainers born  in  his  house  or  bought  with  his  money  {e.  g. 
Gen.  17).  Essentially,  in  these  early  narratives,  the 
"father"  of  a  tribe  is  its  founder. 

Many  persons  dearly  love  an  interpretation  that  brings 
scandal  on  one  of  the  good  men  of  the  Bible.  You  may 
Secondaoy  ^^^  plenty  of  comment  on  the  incident  in 
Abrahamic  Genesis  21,  to  the  effect  that  Abraham 
Peoples  here   displays   his   heartlessness   toward 

Hagar  and  Ishmael,  turning  them  out  into  the  wilder- 
ness to  shift  for  themselves.  But  the  narrative  does  not 
say  that  he  turned  them  out  to  shift  for  themselves.  It 
makes  the  circumstances  sufficiently  distressing.     It  rep- 


The  Narrative  Concerning  Joseph       147 

resents  Abraham  as  grievlngly  and  reluctantly  taking  the 
course  which  discipline  and  the  safety  of  the  tribe  de- 
manded. But  there  is  nothing  in  the  account  to  forbid 
our  thinking  that  Abraham,  either  then  or  subsequently, 
made  ample  provision  for  Ishmael.  And  the  narrative 
expressly  says  that  this  was  the  case. 

We  read  that  ''unto  the  sons  of  the  concubines  that 
Abraham  had  Abraham  gave  gifts ;  and  he  sent  them 
away  from  Isaac  his  son,  while  he  yet  lived,  eastward, 
unto  the  east  country"  (Gen.  25  :  6). 

Who  could  these  ''concubines"  be  but  Hagar  and 
Keturah?  Who  could  these  sons  of  theirs  be  but  Ishmael 
and  Midian  and  Medan  and  the  others?  Abraham  saw 
that  it  was  best  to  set  these  sons  up  in  business  for  them- 
selves, rather  than  have  them  remain  in  the  home  tribe 
as  subordinates  to  Isaac.  Out  of  his  large  property  he 
gave  each  of  them  enough  for  a  start  in  life.  From 
Abraham's  tribe  each  of  them  received  followers  enough 
to  constitute  the  nucleus  of  a  new  band.  In  this  way 
each  became  the  "father"  of  an  incipient  clan.  Abraham 
had  a  wide  influence,  and  the  branch  clans  may  have 
grown  rapidly.  This  understanding  of  the  matter  is 
intelligible  and  clear  cut ;  there  is  no  justification  for 
obscuring  it  into  a  confused  tradition  of  indistinctly  re- 
membered clan  movements. 

Another  item  should  enter  Into  the  account.     Ishmael 
was  several  decades  older  than  the  sons 

s  J^-ae  an       e   ^^    Keturah.      His    able    and   ambitious 
Junior  Tnbes  . 

mother   had    an   mnuence    in    determm- 

Ing   his    fortunes    (Gen.    21  :  20-21).      Persumably    his 

tribe  had  much  the  earlier  start,  and  the  others  for  a 


148  Reasofiable  Biblical  Criticism 

time  bore  a  junior  relation  to  it.     Very  likely  the  bands 

of  the  Keturah  group  were   sometimes   known  by   the 

Ishmaelite  name,  as  well  as  by  their  own  junior  clan 

names.     According  to  the  Bible  numbers  the  taking  of 

Joseph  to  Egypt  occurred  a  little  more  than  90  years 

after  the  death  of  Abraham.    There  is  no  improbability 

in  the  idea  that  at  that  date  the  secondary  Abrahamic 

clans,  however  numerous,  were  still  often  thought  of  as 

a  group,  under  the  name  of  the  senior  clan. 

The  consideration  of  these  matters  has  prepared  us 

for  considering  the  current  critical  theories  of  the  Joseph 

The  Partition         narrative.     They  regard  it  as  made  up, 

of  the  like  the  Flood  narrative,  of  alternating 

Joseph  Narrative   parts  copied  from  earlier  narratives.     In 

this  case,  they  say,  the  two  main  sources  are  J  and  E. 

As  in  the  case  of  the  Flood  story,  when  the  phenomena 

do  not  conform  to  the  alleged  criteria  of  J  and  E  they 

are  cared  for  by  hypotheses  of  later  additions  to  J  or 

of  editorial  changes,  or  of  additions  by  writers  of  the 

P  school,  or  of  annotations;  or  the  text  is  conjecturally 

changed,  and  is  thus  brought  into  conformity. 

More  distinctly  than  in  most  of  the  other  narratives, 

it  is  alleged,  this  narrative  shows  the  seams  where  the 

parts  have  been  pieced   together.     For 

XI-  ^r»  ^^^  °'     example,  notice  that  the  word  "Midlan- 
the  Partition  ^     ' 

ites"  in  Genesis  37  :  28  has  no  article. 
The  statement  "and  there  passed  by  Midianites"  ignores 
what  the  preceding  sentences  have  said  concerning  the 
Ishmaelites.  Directly  afterward  the  name  Joseph  is  used 
three  times,  instead  of  substituting  the  pronoun  the  second 
and  third  times.     These  are  rather  marked  phenomena. 


The  Narrative  Concerning  jfoseph       149 

They  indicate,  it  is  said,  that  the  writer  had  before  him 
one  account  which  read:  "And  his  brethren  hearkened 
unto  him  .  .  .  and  sold  Joseph  to  the  Ishmaehtes  for 
twenty  pieces  of  silver" ;  and  had  another  account  which 
read:  "And  there  passed  by  Midianites,  merchantmen; 
and  they  drew  and  lifted  up  Joseph  out  of  the  pit, 
.  .  .  and  brought  Joseph  into  Eg}^pt";  and  that  he 
put  the  two  together  thus : 

"And  his  brethren  hearkened  unto  him,"  "and  there 
passed  by  Midianites,  merchantmen,  and  they  drew  and 
lifted  up  Joseph  out  of  the  pit,"  "and  sold  Joseph  to  the 
Ishmaehtes  for  twenty  pieces  of  silver,"  "and  they 
brought  Joseph  into  Egypt." 

If  you  look  till  you  see  for  yourself  you  will  per- 
ceive that  these  assertions  are  plausible,  but  also  that  the 
proof  of  them  is  indecisive.  There  are  other  similar  places 
in  the  narrative.  It  is  claimed,  in  virtue  of  these  phe- 
nomena, that  there  was  an  Ephraimite  story  of  Joseph, 
in  which  Reuben  was  named  most  prominently  among 
Joseph's  brothers,  and  in  which  he  did  most  of  the  talk- 
ing, and  also  a  Judahite  story,  in  which  Judah  was  most 
prominent  and  did  most  of  the  talking,  'and  that  some 
one  combined  the  two  to  form  the  story  which  we  now 
have. 

In  dealing  with  inferences  like  these  we  should  not 
forget  that  reasoning  of  this  kind  is  always  inconclusive. 

^  First  of  all  comes  the   fact  that  there 

The  Reasoning  1,^1,  r  i-         r 

Inconclusive        '^^'^  ^^  ^^^^^  ^^^^  °*   accountmg  for 

the    phenomena — for    example,    in    this 

case,  the  hypothesis  of  certain  mental  habits  of  the  author 

of   the   story — and  that  one  of   these  other  ways  may 


150  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

account  for  it  better  than  the  way  now  proposed.  Add 
to  this  that  no  hypothesis  of  two  or  more  earUer  docu- 
ments has  yet  been  framed  that  will  account  for  all  the 
phenomena  as  they  exist.  In  order  to  make  any  hypothe- 
sis of  this  kind  fit,  it  has  to  be  supplemented  by  har- 
monizing hypotheses.  As  a  single  instance,  our  story 
says  (Gen.  37  :  21):  ''And  Reuben  heard  it,  and  de- 
livered him  out  of  their  hand."  The  critics  tell  us  that 
this  sentence  is  from  the  Judahite  document,  in  which 
Reuben  does  not  appear;  and  so  they  drop  the  name 
"Reuben,"  or  replace  it  by  "J^^<^^h,"  in  order  to  make  the 
hypothesis  of  the  two  documents  applicable. 

There  is  a  general  consideration  that  bears  strongly 
against  the  theories  which  regard  the  story  of  Joseph  as 

piecework.  The  story  which  we  have 
_.^    lV  T      ?     ^^    vivid    and    picturesque    and    human 

beyond  most  other  stories  that  exist  in 
literature;  while  each  of  the  alleged  earlier  stories  is 
relatively  bald  and  uninteresting.  Test  this  for  yourself. 
Take  the  Polychrome  Bible,  or  one  of  the  other  works 
of  the  kind,  mentioned  at  the  close  of  Chapter  V,  and 
read  the  J  story  of  Joseph,  as  there  separated  from  the 
rest — just  the  J  story,  and  nothing  else.  Then  do  the 
same  with  the  E  story.  Then  turn  to  a  copy  of  the  Bible, 
revised  version,  and  read  the  story  that  we  have.  If 
some  man  combined  those  two  relatively  inferior  stories 
into  the  matchless  story  which  we  have  in  the  Bible,  he 
was  a  literary  genius.  Being  such  a  genuis,  is  it  likely 
that  he  preferred  patchwork  to  original  composition? 
At  all  events,  it  is  impossible  to  think  of  our  Joseph  story 
as  mere  patchwork  mechanically  done  by  scribes. 


The  Narrative  Concerning  Joseph       151 

But  although  the  partitional  theories  lack  proof,  it  may 
also  be  difficult  positively  to  disprove  them.     They  are 
Why  Object  to     ^^^  ^^  themselves  particularly  objection- 
Partitional  able,  provided  one  could  hold  them  with- 

Theories?  out  otherwise  discrediting  the  narrative. 

It  is  supposable  that  a  person  might  regard  some  form 
of  the  partition  theory  of  the  composition  of  the  Joseph 
story  as  more  probable  than  any  other  theory  known  to 
him;  and  might  hold  this  theory  and  yet  believe  in  the 
truthfulness  and  the  divine  inspiration  of  the  story ;  and 
might  use  it  to  the  full  for  the  spiritual  values  it  con- 
tains. It  is  further  supposable  that  one  might  find  the 
story  true  and  spiritually  nourishing,  even  though  he 
regarded  it  as  largely  parable  rather  than  history.  It  is 
supposable  that  we  might  all  here  find  common  ground, 
where  we  might  keep  silence  in  regard  to  our  differences, 
and  all  alike  attend  to  the  spiritual  values  of  the  story. 

The  current  partitional  criticism,  however,  refuses  to 
permit  us  thus  to  occupy  neutral  ground.     It  insists  on 
The  Story         ^^  analyzing  the  story  of  Joseph  as  to 
Charged  make   it   self-contradictory   and   untrue. 

with  Falsity  It  forbids  our  finding  therein  either  con- 
nected fact  or  congruous  fiction.  It  spoils  the  story  as 
well  as  the  history.  By  insisting  on  interpretations  which 
reduce  the  narrative  to  a  haphazard  combination  of 
legends,  it  suppresses  the  most  important  of  the  spiritual 
values. 

Note  some  details.  It  refuses  to  take  into  the  account 
the  character  of  the  Ishmaelites  and  Midianites  as  sec- 
ondary Abrahamic  peoples,  then  of  such  recent  origin  that 
the  Midianites  are  likely  to  have  been  called  also  by  the 


152  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

generic  name  of  Ishmaelites.  It  insists  that  one  of  the 
original  accounts  said  that  the  men  who  took  Joseph  to 
Egypt  were  IshmaeHtes,  while  the  other  said  that  they 
were  Midianites,  and  that  in  this  they  are  flatly  contra- 
dictory. It  so  interprets  as  to  make  one  account  say  that 
the  Midianites  came  along,  and  found  Joseph  in  the  pit, 
and  drew  him  out  and  made  a  slave  of  him ;  while  the 
combined  account  says  that  some  of  his  brothers  drew 
him  out  and  sold  him  to  the  Ishmaelites.  From  the  be- 
ginning to  the  end  of  the  narrative  the  details  are  so 
interpreted  as  to  make  them  contradictory;  all  the  al- 
leged contradictions  are  thus  lugged  in  by  processes  of 
interpretation.  And  apart  from  this,  many  of  the  in- 
terpretations are  of  the  kind  that  takes  all  the  brightness 
out  of  a  vivid  expression,  and  leaves  to  it  only  a  wooden 
meaning. 

The   idea   of   our  grandfathers   was   that   the   Joseph 

narrative  correctly  presents  facts  that  actually  occurred. 

With  the  understanding  that  the  presen- 

^  ic  uresqueness    ^^^^^^  jg  ^^^  mechanically  scientific,  but 

is  from  the  point  of  view  of  an  observer 
who  thought  and  wrote  in  pictures,  and  whose  pictur- 
esque presentation  is  as  really  true  as  if  it  were 
mechanically  scientific,  this  idea  of  our  grandfathers  con- 
cerning Joseph  cannot  be  proved  to  need  any  modifica- 
tion. Least  of  all  does  it  need  to  be  modified  by  crum- 
bling it  into  unpicturesque  and  inconsistent  details. 


CHAPTER  XII 

"shepherds  in  the  wilderness  " 

Introductory:  The  baby-story  interpretation.  Its  prevalence. 
Especially  where  the  movements  of  men  in  masses  are  con- 
cerned. I.  The  phrase  "shepherds  in  the  wilderness"  (Num. 
14  '•  33)-  The  word  in  the  Hebrew,  the  Greek,  the  Latin. 
The  old  traditional  understanding  of  it.  II.  The  fact  de- 
scribed in  the  phrase.  As  understood  by  many.  As  correctly 
understood.  The  population  as  a  whole.  The  camp  and 
the  tent  of  meeting.  The  filling  in  of  the  narrative.  The 
manna  and  the  quails.  The  marches.  The  disciplinary  pur- 
pose. Conclusion :  The  phrase  is  the  key  to  this  part  of  the 
history.     Its  bearing  on  historicity. 

Most  of  US  had  the  Bible  stories  told  us  when  we  were 
little  children.     We  then  understood  them  with  such  a 

grasp    as    little    children    have    of    such 
The  Baby-Story    ^,  .  -r        • 

Interpretation  ^^^"^^-  ^"  "P^^  ^^^^^  we  are  more  apt 
than  we  ought  to  be  to  limit  our  idea 
of  the  meaning  of  passages  by  the  idea  we  have  had  from 
childhood.  This  has  been  said  before  in  this  volume, 
but  it  is  one  of  the  things  we  need  to  have  impressed 
upon  us  by  repetition.  Through  the  neglect  of  it  we 
make  bad  failures.  Instead  of  using  our  mature  judg- 
ment to  determine  what  the  Bible  says,  we  assume  that 
it  means  just  what,  from  babyhood,  we  have  supposed 
it  to  mean.  To  an  unsuspected  extent  many  of  us  hold 
babyish  ideas  of  the  Bible  that  are  quite  in  contrast  with 
our  "grown  up"  ideas  of  other  things. 

I  should  be  sorry  to  be  understood  as  speaking  con- 

153 


154  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

temptuously  of  the  baby-story  use  of  the  Bible.  It  is  one 
of  the  glories  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  that  they 
are  capable  of  this  use.  They  are  suited  to  the  needs  of 
very  little  children  as  well  as  of  older  people.  Equally 
from  the  point  of  view  of  the  scientific  scholar  and  from 
that  of  the  religious  worker,  it  is  desirable  that  the  Bible 
should  be  studied  by  babes.  That  is  what  the  Bible  is 
for.  The  fact  that  a  little  one  understands  as  a  child  is 
no  reason  why  the  sacred  writings  should  be  withheld 
from  him;  they  are  profitable,  even  with  a  child's  under- 
standing of  them.  God's  revealing  of  his  word  to  babes 
is  not  contemptible. 

But  I  am  not  treating  it  with  contempt  when  I  apply 
to  it  the  apostle's  saying:  ''When  I  was  a  child  I  spake 
as  a  child,  I  felt  as  a  child,  I  thought  as  a  child ;  now  that 
I  have  become  a  man  I  have  put  away  childish  things" 
(I  Cor.  13  :  II). 

It  is  simply  a  fact  which  we  all  know  that  children 
have  children's  views  of  things.  For  an  adult  to  take  a 
child's  view  of  a  matter  is  often  very  absurd.  A  child's 
knowledge  of  something  is  on  the  scale  of  a  gill  cup, 
while  a  grown  person's  knowledge  of  the  same  thing  may 
be  on  the  scale  of  a  bushel.  If  we  cling  to  our  gill  cup 
notions  of  the  Bible  after  we  have  come  to  take  bushel 
notions  of  other  things,  we  spoil  the  proportion ;  we  dis- 
honor the  Bible  by  this  narrowing  process ;  we  discredit 
our  own  intelligence. 

Probably  all  of  us  make  this  mistake  to  some  extent. 
We  have  been  familiar  with  the  Bible  stories  from  child- 
hood. Very  likely  we  at  first  understood  them  as  well 
as  we  were  then  capable  of  doing.     We  have  been  ac- 


^''Shepherds  in  the  Wilderness^'  155 

customed  to  suppose  that  we  know  all  about  them.     We 
are  not  conscious  of  ignorance,  or  of  any  need  to  improve 
our  knowledge.    And  so  upon  this  foun- 
I  f  It"       dation  of  sand  we  build  the  whole  super- 

structure of  our  adult  knowledge  of  the 
Bible.  This  is  made  worse  by  the  fact  that  the  element  of 
oral  tradition  entered  so  largely  into  our  childish  knowl- 
edge. All  this  does  not  prove  that  the  child's  knowledge  of 
the  Bible  is  false  or  worthless ;  but  it  does  prove  that  the 
child's  knowledge  is  utterly  inadequate  to  the  purposes 
of  mature  thinking.  It  proves  that  we  need,  in  this  as 
in  other  cases,  after  we  have  grown  up,  to  restudy  the 
things  which  we  studied  as  children. 

Perhaps  there  is  no  part  of  the  Bible  where  the  inade- 
quacy of  childish  ideas  is  more  apparent  than  in  the  ac- 
The  Exodus  count  of  the  exodus  and  of  the  life  of 
Narrative  for  Israel  in  the  wilderness.  Little  children 
Example  and  ill-informed  people  are  particularly 

apt  to  form  distorted  ideas  of  the  movements  of  large 
numbers  of  persons  in  masses.  They  read  of  the  march 
of  armies  of  hundreds  of  thousands  of  men,  like  those 
of  Japan  and  Russia  in  the  recent  war,  and  they  picture 
the  movement  to  themselves  as  if  there  were  but  a  few 
dozen  of  the  men.  They  form  a  similar  mental  picture 
when  they  read  of  the  migrations  of  the  great  hordes  in 
northern  and  central  Europe.  Not  children  and  ill-in- 
formed persons  alone,  but  all  of  us,  form  inadequate  ideas 
in  such  matters. 

Consider  an  illustrative  instance.  In  Numbers  14  :  33 
is  a  sentence  which  describes  the  condition  of  the  Israel- 
ites during  about  thirty-seven  and  a  half  of  the  forty 


156  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

years  after  they  left  Egypt.     In  the  King  James  version 
it  is   translated:     "Your  children   shall   wander   in   the 

wilderness    forty    years."      In    the    re- 
Shepherds  in  .      1  '         n  1     M  •      1  ,       ..1 
the  Wilderness    ^^^^    versions    wander'  is  changed  to    be 

wanderers,"  with  the  marginal  note  *'Heb. 
shepherds."  That  is,  the  revisers  hold  that  the  strictly 
correct  rendering  is :  "Your  children  shall  be  shepherds 
in  the  wilderness  forty  years." 

It  is  a  change  of  only  a  single  word,  but  it  may  sup- 
posably  revolutionize  one's  whole  conception  of  the  life 
of  Israel  in  the  wilderness.  If  you  have  been  accustomed 
to  think  of  the  Israelites  as  all  the  time  massed  together  in 
one  enormous  fourfold  camp  around  the  tent  of  meeting, 
subsisting  mainly  on  manna  given  by  miracle  ;  and  of  their 
wandering  as  the  occasional  movement  of  this  great  camp 
from  one  horrible  place  to  another,  please  compare  your 
idea  for  a  few  seconds  with  that  expressed  in  the  clause 
"shepherds  in  the  wilderness."  There  could  not  be  a 
greater  contrast. 

As  the  matter  is  important,  notice  that  this  marginal 
translation  of  the  revisers  is  the  only  correct  translation. 

Words   of  the   stem  occur  about  three 
She  h  rd  hundred  times  in  the  Hebrew  Bible,  and 

always  with  this  one  meaning  or  with 
closely  related  secondary  meanings.  Intransitively  the 
word  is  used  of  cattle  or  sheep  pasturing.  Transitively  it 
describes  men  taking  care  of  pasturing  cattle  or  sheep. 
Words  of  this  stem  describe  pasturage  land,  or  the  act 
of  pasturing.  The  comradery  of  the  life  of  shepherds 
furnishes  one  group  of  derivative  meanings,  and  the 
misery  of  a  pasture  eaten  bare  furnishes  another.     No 


^^  Shepherds  in  the  Wilderness''  157 

word  of  the  stem  is  ever  used  to  denote  roaming  or 
roving  or  wandering,  though  of  course  the  shepherd  life 
may  be  in  itself  a  roaming  life. 

The  Greek  translation  of  the  word,  in  this  verse,  is 
as  definite  and  unambiguous  as  the  Hebrew — 
nemomenoi,  "pasturers."  The  Greek  word  is  not  the 
most  common  word  for  shepherd,  but  it  specifically  de- 
notes graziers — men  whose  occupation  it  is  to  pasture 
cattle  and  sheep.  There  is  in  it  no  idea  of  wandering, 
except  in  the  sense  in  which  shepherd  Hfe  is  in  itself 
field  Hfe. 

The  Vulgate  translation,  made  some  centuries  later, 
renders  the  word  by  vagi.  This  Latin  word  is  the  ancestor 
of  such  English  words  as  vague,  vaga- 
_     ,    .  bond,  and  perhaps  vagrant.    Perhaps  the 

Latin  translators  had  in  mind  the  idea 
that  the  life  of  shepherds  in  the  wilderness  is  an  unsettled 
life,  that  shepherds  move  from  place  to  place.  Or  pos- 
sibly an  element  of  the  marvelous  had  already  entered 
into  the  interpretation  of  the  passage,  so  that  they 
thought  of  the  Israelites  as  a  vast  horde  massed  together, 
wandering  from  place  to  place  wherever  the  tent  of  meet- 
ing might  lead  them. 

When  our  Teutonic  or  Keltic  or  Scandinavian  ances- 
tors were  evangelized  they  received  these  stories  orally 
from  men  whose  Bibles  were  in  Latin.  These  early  mis- 
sionaries could  not  make  the  stories  too  marvelous  for  the 
taste  of  their  barbarian  auditors.  Their  interpretation 
of  them  has  been  handed  down  to  us  in  an  uninterrupted 
stream  of  oral  transmission.  Most  of  us  heard  the  stories 
before  we  could  read,  and  when  we  began  to  read  them 


138  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

we  gave  them  the  meaning  with  which  we  were  already 
familiar. 

The  correcting  of  our  inadequate  ideas  is  one  of  our 
most  important  lines  of  experience.  Unfortunately,  we 
do  not  always  see  the  need  of  correcting  our  inadequate 
ideas  of  Bible  history. 

Of  course  we  do  not  all  form  exactly  the  same  mental 

picture  of  Israel  in  the  wilderness.     But  I  am  afraid 

that  many  hold  a  view   which  may  be 

»x  •    XL.  «A7     o     fairly    stated    as    follows,    however    the 
It  m  this  Way  ?  -^ 

statement  may  diner,  verbally,  from 
those  which  they  are  accustomed  to  make ;  that  the  Israel- 
ites were  at  least  as  numerous  as  the  present  popu- 
lation of  Philadelphia ;  that  most  of  them  had  flocks  and 
herds ;  that  they  were  massed  together  in  one  camp  all 
the  time  for  thirty-seven  and  a  half  years ;  that  they  had 
no  many-story  buildings,  but  all  lived  on  the  ground  floor, 
and  had  room  somewhere  for  their  flocks  and  herds ; 
that  all  of  them,  every  morning  except  the  sabbath,  with- 
out subways  or  trolleys,  found  their  way  to  the  region 
outside  the  camp,  and  gathered  manna  for  the  day's  sub- 
sistence, spending  the  rest  of  their  time  no  one  knows 
how ;  that  in  these  years,  though  they  all  lived  in  sight  of 
the  smoke  of  the  sacrifices  at  the  tent  of  meeting,  they  lost 
their  sacrificial  system,  and  even  the  custom  of  circum- 
cision (Deut.  12  :  8  and  context;  Amos  5  :  25 ;  Josh.  5  : 
2-9)  ;  that  their  wandering  consisted  in  the  frequent  re- 
moval of  the  great  camp  from  one  place  to  another ;  that 
these  were  the  processes  which  Jehovah  chose  for  training 
them  to  self-reliance  and  responsibility  and  courage. 

Contrast  this  with  the  instantaneous  photograph  flashed 


^^  Shepherds  in  the  Wilderness''  159 

before  us  in  the  phrase  "shepherds  in  the  wilderness." 
Numberless  bands  of  a  few  scores  of  people  each,  some 
of  them  as  many  hundred  miles  away  as 
p.  they  needed  to  go  in  order  to  find  pas- 

turage, subsisting  mainly  by  their  flocks 
and  herds  and  by  the  temporary  cultivation  of  patches  of 
soil,  the  older  people  dying  off  by  hardships  and  the  newer 
generation  becoming  toughened  in  the  struggle  for  exist- 
ence, the  nation  gaining  in  resoluteness  while  losing  in 
the  externals  of  civilization  and  religion,  scattered,  but 
with  a  consciousness  of  unity  spreading  itself  through  all 
the  bands,  and  with  an  expectation  that  Jehovah  would 
some  time  call  upon  them  to  resume  their  progress  to  the 
promised  land. 

This  conception  is  consistent  with  all  that  is  said  con- 
cerning the  tent  of  meeting  and  the  fourfold  camp  and 
The  Camp  and     ^^  manna.     According  to  the  Bible  ac- 
the  Tent  of  count  the  tent  of  meeting  was  in  exist- 

Meeting  ence.    We  are  told  or  we  naturally  infer 

that  its  ritual,  once  established,  was  maintained  in  the 
daily  worship  and  the  set  feasts  throughout  the  forty 
years  of  the  wandering;  that  the  fourfold  camp  was 
around  the  tent  of  meeting,  within  hearing  of  its  signal 
trumpets,  marching  when  the  tent  marched  (Num.  2; 
10  :  1-7,  14-28)  ;  that  the  whole  population  was  counted 
as  belonging  to  the  fourfold  camp  in  some  of  its  divi- 
sions (Num.  I,  2,  3,  4)  ;  that  each  of  the  tribes  and 
families  was  actually  represented  there;  that  the  camp 
moved  from  place  to  place  on  signal  given  by  the  pillar 
of  cloud,  sometimes  remaining  one  night  in  a  locality,  and 
sometimes   remaining   much   longer    (Num.   9  :  15-23)  ; 


i6o  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

that  when  the  manna  was  given  it  was  on  the  ground 
around  the  camp  (Num.  ii  :  7-9;  Exod.  16). 

But  all  this  is  very  different  from  saying  that  the  whole 
population  was  all  the  time  present  in  the  camp.  They 
were  all  there  representatively,  whether  the  number  actu- 
ally present  at  any  time  was  small  or  large.  Whenever  a 
shepherd  came  in  from  the  wilderness  he  presumably 
had  his  appointed  place  in  the  camp,  determined  by  his 
belonging  to  such  and  such  a  tribe  or  family.  There  may 
have  been  ways  of  making  sure  that  each  tribe  constantly 
had  its  quota  in  the  representative  camp.  Presumably 
the  camping  body  was  more  numerous  at  some  times  than 
at  other  times.  What  is  said  concerning  the  quadruple 
camp  is  entirely  intelligible  without  the  hypothesis  that 
the  whole  population  constantly  resided  there. 

For  the  idea  that  they  were  all  permanently  there  is  a 

hypothesis.     The  account  does  not  say  that  they  were. 

That  notion  is  a  bit  of  filling  which  we 
Which  FiUing-in    ,  .  ^    1   •    ,     ^t,  \    .  t 

•  <-       _L  o  have  mserted  mto  the  account,  to  make 

IS  Correct  ?  .    .  .  .     ' 

it  intelligible  and  interesting.  It  is 
equally  legitimate  to  fill  in  with  the  dififerent  idea  that 
the  great  body  of  the  people  were  not  in  the  camp,  but 
were  scattered  through  the  regions  west  and  east  of  the 
Elanitic  Sea,  living  the  life  of  shepherds.  The  difference 
between  these  two  ways  of  filling  in  is  that  the  second  is 
sober  inference  from  the  facts,  while  the  first  is  not. 

If  you  are  in  the  habit  of  thinking  that  the  Israelites 
in  the  wilderness  subsisted  mainly  on  manna  and  quails, 
miraculously  given,  you  may  have  to  think  that  they 
were  all  continually  in  one  camp,  the  camp  around  which 
the  manna  fell.     But  the  accounts  do  not  say  that  they 


^^  Shepherds  in  the  Wilderness''  i6i 

subsisted  mainly  on  manna  and  quails.     Many  have  in- 
ferred this  from  the  accounts,  but  the  accounts  do  not 
say  it.   They  speak  of  other  resources — 
The  Manna       flocks  and  herds,  fish  and  game  and  agri- 
cultural products,  money  and  manufac- 
tured products.     Rightly  understood  they  inform  us  that 
the  manna,  throughout  the  forty  years,  was  God's  special 
provision  for  his  people  when  emergencies  arose. 

The  accounts  affirm  the  miracle  of  the  manna,  but  no 
one  understands  them  to  say  that  the  cattle  and  sheep 
subsisted  on  manna,  or  subsisted  in  any  way  by  miracle ; 
they  lived  by  finding  grass  and  eating  it.  It  is  therefore 
impossible  that  all  the  men  who  tended  them  lived  all 
the  time  in  one  camp ;  they  must  have  been  scattered  over 
immense  stretches  of  territory. 

No   one    understands    the    accounts    to    say    that    the 
marches  were  ordinarily  miraculous ;  the  people  went  step 
by  step  on  foot.    A  study  of  the  marches 
The  Marches      described,    with    the    topography,    con- 
vinces   every    one    that    the    marching 
column  was  always  one  limited  in  numbers.     Like  other 
great  moving  bodies  of  men,  they  marched  in  relatively 
small  divisions ;  not  with  millions  of  persons  and  animals 
all  closely  packed  together. 

The  purpose  of  the  training  of  the  thirty-seven  years 

was   to   transform   the   enervated,   cowardly   Israel   that 

came  out  of  Egypt  into  a  hardy,  bold, 

e    iscip  mary   j-gg^^j-^^gf  ^|   people.     Jehovah   saw   that 

this  was  desirable  even  at  the  cost  of 
temporary  retrogression  in  the  externals  of  civilization 
and  religion.     Nothing  could  be  less  fitted  to  accomplish 


102  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticisni 

this  purpose  than  shutting  them  up  for  decades  in  a  camp, 
where  children  would  grow  to  adult  age  seeing  a  crowd 
of  neighbors  every  day  and  never  seeing  anything  differ- 
ent, and  there  caring  for  them  by  miracle,  without  effort 
on  their  part.  Nothing  could  be  better  fitted  to  accom- 
plish the  purpose  in  hand  than  throwing  them  upon  their 
own  resources,  in  the  precarious  shepherd  life  of  the 
region. 

The  phrase  ''shepherds  in  the  wilderness"  is  therefore 
the  key  for  interpreting  the  whole  history  of  the  period. 
It  excludes  a  certain  element  of  marvel- 
The  Key  Phrase  ousness  which  has  been  strongly  ac- 
cented in  the  past,  and  which  many  are 
loath  to  surrender ;  but  it  also  excludes  nearly  all  the  diffi- 
culties that  lie  in  the  way  of  accepting  the  narrative  as 
historical,  and  it  wonderfully  intensifies  the  graphic  veri- 
similitude and  the  human  interest  of  the  narrative. 

If  the  view  thus  presented  seems  to  any  one  to  be  a 
novelty,  that  is  no  reason  either  for  accepting  or  for  re- 
jecting it.  It  should  be  considered  on  its  merits,  and  it 
is  important  enough  to  be  worthy  of  consideration. 

If  one  regards  the  biblical  story  as  mere  myth  or 
legend,  he  may  have  an  interest  in  rejecting  the  inter- 
pretation just  given.  His  view  is  based  on  the  proposition 
that  the  accounts  are  incredible  as  history,  and  he  has  a 
quarrel  with  anything  that  goes  to  show  that  they  are 
credible.  If  the  phrase  "shepherds  in  the  wilderness" 
really  implies  what  we  have  found  that  it  seems  to  imply, 
then  it  further  implies  reality  in  the  events ;  that  the 
narratives  are  narratives  of  tacts,  and  are  not  mere 
stories. 


CHAPTER  XIII 


THE    NARRATIVE   CONCERNING    SAMSON 


Introductory.  Our  superficial  ideas  concerning  Samson.  Is  Sam- 
son a  sun-myth?  The  narrative.  One  of  six  detached 
stories.  Speaks  of  Samson  as  judge  of  Israel.  Samson: 
His  physical  strength,  and  his  humor.  His  ability  as  a  leader. 
Before  the  battle  of  Lehi.  That  battle  and  its  consequences. 
His  morals.  His  religion.  The  Spirit  of  Jehovah.  Samson's 
long  hair.  His  weaknesses.  Delilah.  The  great  moral :  Take 
warning  from  the  man  who  would  keep  fooling  with  tempta- 
tion. 


Very  likely  it  is  true  that  the  majority  of  those  who 
read  the  Samson  narrative  in  the  book  of  Judges  (13  : 
2  to  16  :  31)  feel  the  same  kind  of  interest  in  him  that 
they  feel  in  a  first-class  circus  performer.  In  the  circus 
the  clown  and  the  gymnast  exhibit  side  by  side.  The  spec- 
tators laugh  and  they  wonder;  it  is  the  combination  of 
surprise  and  fun  that  makes  the  interest  so  intense.  The 
story  of  Samson  makes  an  appeal  of  the  same  sort.  His 
exploits  are  as  amusing  as  they  are  marvelous.  Per- 
haps it  is  because  our  interest  in  him  is  of  this  sort  that 
we  rest  content  with  having  very  superficial  notions  con- 
cerning him. 

There  are  those  who  would  have  us  understand  the 
story  of  Samson  as  a  sun-myth.  The  name  Samson 
means  "little  sun."  Samson's  strength  lay  in  his  hair, 
and  the  sun's  strength  Hes   in  its  rays ;  does  not  this  prov^e 

163 


164  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

that  the   man   Samson   never   existed,   but   that   certam 

fancies  concerning  the  sun  ultimately  shaped  themselves 

into   the    story    which    we    have?      The 

A  Sun-Myth  ?  alleged  proof  of  this  is  purely  fanciful, 
and  I  am  not  so  credulous  as  to  accept  it. 
If,  however,  anyone  thinks  that  the  story  is  a  myth  he 
ought  to  be  so  appreciative  and  fair  as  to  count  it  unique 
among  myths  for  the  high  and  distinct  ethical  lessons 
which  it  teaches.  But  a  person  of  literary  insight  ought 
to  be  able  to  see  that  the  narrative  we  have  is  not  a  myth, 
but  a  character  sketch  with  a  great  moral. 

The  Samson  narrative  is  a  detached  story — one  of  six 
stories,  the  only  ones  of  their  kind  in  the  Bible,  which 

begin  with  a  certain  formula  (Judg.  13  : 
One  of  the  -r,    ^, 

^.    e-x    •  2;    17  :  1-2;    10  :  I :    Ruth    1:1-2;    i 

Six  Stones  '       '  \ 

Sam.  I  :  1-2;  9  :  1-2).    This  fact  bears 

in  several  ways  upon  our  understanding  of  the  incidents. 
These  belong  several  decades  later  than  the  events  of 
the  two  stories  that  follow,  and  some  decades  earlier  than 
the  latest  events  mentioned  in  Judges  12.  They  are  con- 
cerned with  the  Philistine  oppression  mentioned  in  Judges 
10  :  II,  and  not,  as  many  imagine,  with  the  later  oppres- 
sion of  the  time  of  Eli. 

The  narrative  professes  to  give  incidents  in  the  life  of 
a  man  who   was   judge  of   Israel — not  a  merely   local 

judge,  though  some  think  this,  but  one 
Samson  as  Judge  who     "judged     Israel     twenty     years" 

(Judg.  15  :  20;  16  :  31).  But  it  records 
none  of  his  acts  as  judge.  It  gives  some  account  of  his 
birth  and  of  his  wild  youth,  perhaps  up  to  the  time  when 
he  became  judge ;  and  then  it  mentions  certain  non-official 


The  Narrative  Concerning  Samson       165 

deeds  of  his,  done  in  the  last  few  months  of  his  Hfe, 
when  he  seems  to  have  relapsed  into  the  follies  of  his 
youth.  Yet  it  gives  us  the  ground  for  inferring  that  his 
career  as  judge  was  successful.  It  was  promised  before- 
hand that  he  should  ''begin  to  save  Israel  out  of  the 
hand  of  the  Philistines"  (Judg.  13  :  5).  This  promise 
was  made  good.  In  Samson's  youth  the  Philistines  were 
"rulers  over"  Israel  (Judg.  15  :  11),  and  came  into  Israel- 
itish  territory  at  their  pleasure;  in  his  later  years  they 
keep  on  their  own  side  of  the  border.  His  twenty  years 
as  judge  came  between  the  exploits  recorded  in  Judges 
14,  15  and  those  recorded  in  Judges  16;  there  is  no  reason 
to  doubt  that  they  were  years  of  sober  and  effective 
service. 

Samson  is  represented  as  a  man  of  marvelous  bodily 
strength.     All  readers  are   familiar  with  this  phase  of 

0  .  ox       X..  ^^^  matter.     He  is  represented  as  also 
Samson  s  Strength  .  ,  .      ,  .    ,  ^    . 
and  Humor             ^  ^-"^^  ^^  humor,  a  practical  joker.    This 

Is  equally  familiar.    We  all  think  of  him, 

1  suppose,  as  big  and  jolly,  mischief  loving,  beaming  with 
fun  and  laughter. 

Less  attention  has  been  paid  to  the  fact  that  the  account 

represents  him  as  a  man  of  mental  ability,  and  particu- 

r,.  ^.,.   ,         ^^^^y  ^s  a  leader  of  men.     Some  com- 
nis  Gifts  for  x  x         1  t  r   ,  • 

Leadership  mentators  have  even  spoken  of  him  as 
able-bodied  and  weak-brained.  But  in 
many  of  his  recorded  exploits  muscle  would  have  been 
useless  without  mind.  In  telling  the  story  some  seem  to 
fill  it  out  in  ways  like  these :  "And  Samson  was  so  strong 
that  he  went  all  by  himself  and  slew  thirty  Philistines, 
and  took  their  garments  to  pay  the  bet  that  he  had  made. 


i66  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

And  he  was  so  strong  that  all  by  himself  he  caught  three 
hundred  foxes,  and  with  them  set  on  fire  the  corn  of  the 
Philistines.  And  he  was  so  strong  that  all  by  himself  he 
slew  a  thousand  Philistines  with  the  jawbone  of  an  ass." 
Note  that  in  these  statements  the  ''all  by  himself"  is  of 
the  nature  of  filling.  It  is  not  in  the  Bible  text.  And  it 
is  not  the  natural  or  correct  filling  for  the  narrative. 
Samson's  great  strength  would  be  of  no  particular  use 
to  him  for  exploits  like  these  except  as  it  attached  men 
to  him  as  their  leader.  The  natural  understanding  is 
that  he  had  followers  as  reckless  as  himself,  who  joined 
him  in  slaying  the  thirty  Philistines,  and  in  catching  the 
three  hundred  foxes.  When  he  made  his  attack  at  Lehi, 
with  the  jawbone  of  the  ass,  and  the  surprised  Philistines 
began  to  give  way  before  him,  his  excited  countrymen 
of  course  joined  in  the  fight  in  crowds,  and  helped  in  the 
slaughter  and  the  victory. 

His  exploits  imply  that  he  had  followers.  He  fell  in 
love  with  the  Timnathite  woman.  His  parents  objected, 
but  the  young  man  would  have  his  way.  Evidently  he 
liked  the  company  of  the  roystering  youths,  her  neigh- 
bors. He  bet  them  a  suit  of  clothes  apiece  that  they 
could  not  find  out  his  riddle.  They  gave  his  wife  her 
choice  between  discovering  his  secret  and  being  burned 
up.  She  discovered  it  for  them.  He  paid  his  debt  at 
the  expense  of  their  countrymen.  Doubtless  he  had  Judah- 
ite  chums  who  helped  him  pay  it.  Having  paid  it  he 
abandoned  the  woman  who  had  betrayed  him.  After- 
ward he  was  vexed  because  of  her  being  given  to  another 
man.  By  way  of  revenge,  and  of  course  assisted  by  his 
pals,  he  sent  a  hundred  and  fifty  pairs  of  torch-bearing 


The  Narrative  Concer?iing  Samson       167 

foxes  through  the  PhiHstine  grain-fields.  In  their  turn 
they  took  vengeance  by  burning  his  wife  and  her  father. 
Then  Samson,  of  course  with  the  help  of  reckless  young 
men  Hke  himself,  ''smote  them  hip  and  thigh."  Called 
to  account  for  this  he  submitted  to  arrest  by  his  country- 
men of  Judah,  but  on  being  handed  over  to  the  Philis- 
tines he  made  the  fierce  and  unexpected  onslaught  which 
resulted  in  the  battle  of  Lehi. 

What,  according  to  the  Bible  account,  happened  at 
Lehi  ?  A  difficulty  arises  in  answering  because  the  word 
lehi,  used  eight  times  in  this  short  pas- 
The  Battle  of  Lehi  sage,  means  "jawbone,"  and  you  have  to 
decide  in  each  case  whether  it  is  used 
as  a  common  noun  or  a  place  name.  Clearly,  the 
fountain  from  which  Samson  drank  was  in  Lehi,  and  not 
in  the  jawbone.  Translators  have  labored  hard  to  give 
sense  to  Samson's  outcry  in  celebration  of  his  victory ; 
but  apparently  it  is  intended  nonsense,  like  a  college  yell. 

"At  Lehi  of  the  ass, 

0  an  ass,  a  couple  of  she-asses! 
At  Lehi  of  the  ass 

1  smote  a  thousand  men !" 

Or  the  first  and  third  lines  might  be, 

"With  the  jawbone  of  the  ass." 

We  get  no  complete  idea  of  what  occurred  except  by 
supplying  some  of  the  omitted  particulars.  If  in  supply- 
ing these  we  are  guided  by  probabilities,  and  not  by  the 
love  of  the  marvelous,  we  shall  picture  Samson's  country- 
men as  joining  him  in  the  attack,  after  he  had  first  thrown 


1 68  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

the  enemy  into  a  panic.  It  is  not  an  unheard-of  thing  for 
the  leader  in  a  battle  to  be  credited  with  the  total  loss  of 
the  enemy,  and  we  need  not  worry  if  some  one  thinks  that 
the  thousand  men  spoken  of  by  Samson  includes  those 
smitten  by  his  followers  as  well  as  by  himself. 

The  writer  in  Judges  is  here  telling  a  personal  story, 
and  he  leaves  to  inference  the  important  political  results 
which  followed  the  battle  of  Lehi.     As 
„      .  we  have  already  seen,  it  probably  made 

Samson  judge  of  Israel.  From  the  situa- 
tion and  the  silences  of  the  narrative  we  may  infer  that 
the  man  gave  up  his  reckless  habits  when  he  found  grave 
responsibilities  resting  upon  him.  After  a  public  career 
of  twenty  years,  however,  his  vigilance  relaxed,  and  he 
fell  back  into  his  old  ways. 

In  addition  to  Samson's  physical  strength  and  his  gifts 
for  leadership,  he  is  represented  as  irreproachable  in  some 
matters  of  conduct.    So  far  as  we  know, 
Hb  Morals        for  example,  he  was  true  to  his  obliga- 
tions  as  a   Nazirite.     If  he  were  now 
living  he  would  not  be  a  drunkard,  or  self-indulgent  in 
matters  of  luxury.    People  would  be  saying  that  there  is 
nothing  mean  about  him. 

He  is  also  presented  to  us  as  a  religious  man.  In  his 
religious  experiences  two  points  are  pushed  to  the  front 
but  we  need  not  doubt  that  back  of  them  in  his  conscious- 
ness lay  such  dispositions  toward  God  and  the  world  as 
mark  the  inner  life  of  other  religious  men. 

One  of  the  points  made  prominent  is  that  he  had  re- 
markable gifts  of  the  Spirit  of  Jehovah ;  and  in  particular 
that  his  seizures  of  extraordinary  strength  were  of  the 


The  Narrative  Concerning  Samson       169 

nature  of  gifts  of  the  Spirit  (Judg.  13  :  25;  14  :  6,  19; 
15  :  14).     It  does  not  follow  either  that  he  was  a  high- 
minded  man  morally  and  spiritually,  or  that  he  was  not. 
♦•  The  Spirit        With   all   the   Spiritual   uses   which   our 
Came  Mightily     generation  is  making  of  athletics  we  need 
Upon  Him  "         find  nothing  strange  in  this  phase  of  the 
biography  of  Samson.   Such  a  man  in  our  day  might  be  a 
gifted  evangelist  or  reformer  or  worker  in  the  Y.  M.  C.  A. 
Samson's  long  hair  is  the  other  peculiar  fact  that  is 
made  prominent  in  connection  with  his  religious  char- 
acter.   This  was  the  outward  sign  of  his 
His  Long  Hair     being  a  Nazirite,  the  sign  of  his  personal 
relations  with  Jehovah,  and  so  it  had  its 
significance  in  connection  with  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit  of 
Jehovah.     We  ought  not  to  shrink  from  miracle  as  ac- 
counting for  his  feats  of  strength,  but  we  may  also  accept 
certain  psychological  explanations  as  far  as  they  will  go. 
Imagine   Samson's  powerful  muscles  as   sometimes  af- 
fected by  a  religious  excitement  that  had  the  force  of 
frenzy.    That  would  account  for  some  of  his  wonderful 
efforts  of  strength.    And  then  imagine  his  overpowering 
sense  of  guilt  when  he  discovers  that  his  hair  is  gone, 
that  through  his  own  fault  he  has  lost  the  outward  symbol 
of  the  relations  between  Jehovah  and  himself.     Imagine 
his   dismay,   his    depression,   his   consequent   weakness. 
And  when  he  has  thus  brought  punishment  upon  himself, 
it  IS  natural  to  think  of  him  as  repentant,  and  as  gradually 
returning  .to  normal  spiritual  and  bodily  conditions. 

The  narrative  thus  characterizes  Samson  physically, 
mentally,  morally,  religiously,  and  it  also  pictures  his 
characteristic  weaknesses.     He  had  two  passions  which 


170  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

he  indulged  recklessly — the  passion  for  exciting  adven- 
ture, and  a  certain  form  of  passion  for  women.  Per- 
haps it  does  not  appear  that  he  was  sensual  in  the  ordinary 
sense  of  that  term.     But  he  had  a  keen 

amson  s  wo  admiration  for  a  certain  Philistine  type 
of  beauty.  He  dearly  loved  to  be  coaxed 
and  flattered  by  a  woman  of  that  type.  Such  a  man,  in 
our  civilization,  would  be  a  male  flirt;  and  he  might  be 
a  speculator  or  a  sporting  man,  a  rough  rider  or  an  avia- 
tor; or,  more  objectionably,  a  gambler  or  a  filibuster. 

These  characteristics  exhibit  themselves  in  his  relations 
with  his  Timnathite  wife,  but  more  decidedly  in  his  rela- 
tions with  Delilah.  The  narrative  does 
Delilah  not  inform  us  whether  Samson  and  De- 

lilah were  married.  However  this  may 
have  been  he  risked  fame  and  Hfe  and  usefulness  and 
public  justice  in  being  thus  intimate  with  a  Philistine 
woman.  But  the  risks  made  the  thing  exciting,  and  the 
greater  the  risks  the  more  intense  the  excitement,  and  the 
temptation  conquered  him.  Probably  he  found  his  daily 
routine  unexciting  and  monotonous,  and  he  had  a  crav- 
ing for  change. 

He  risked  the  more  in  visiting  her  at  Sorek,  instead  of 
taking  her  home.  But  this  was  part  of  the  fun.  He 
liked  the  sensation  of  risk,  and  grew  foolish  in  enjoy- 
ing it. 

When  she  bound  him  with  the  withes  it  became  clear 
that  either  she  too  was  playing  with  fire,  or  else  was 
treacherous  to  him.  He  saw  that  the  sport  had  become 
dangerous,  but  that  made  it  the  more  exciting  and  allur- 
ing.   The  danger  became  the  more  evident  with  each  of 


The  Narrative  Coitcernmg  Samson       171 

her  successive  attempts ;  but  it  was  delicious  to  see  the 
cheek  with  which  DeHlah  carried  it  off.  And  then  the 
poor  thing  was  really  so  dead  in  love  with  him !  As  a 
sportsman  he  could  not  stop  now,  in  the  middle  of  the 
game.  Indeed  the  game  was  so  fascinating  that  he  did 
not  wish  to  stop. 

This  leads  us  to  the  great  moral  of  this  character  sketch 
of  Samson.  From  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  the  narra- 
tive he  is  pictured  to  us  as  a  typical  in- 
The  Great  Moral  stance  of  a  certain  tendency  in  human 
conduct.  He  is  typically  the  person  who 
will  keep  fooling  with  temptation.  In  this  character  he 
stands  to  every  one  of  us  as  an  example  and  a  warning. 
The  physical  interest  of  the  story  is  such  that  we  cannot 
fail  of  perceiving  the  points  on  which  the  moral  depends. 
And  the  moral  is  one  that  is  serious  beyond  measure. 

We  human  beings  are  greatly  given  to  the  folly  of 
fooling  with  temptation.  We  are  like  little  children  who 
will  play  with  fire.  You  know  some  child  that  has  a 
morbid  habit  of  making  the  acquaintance  of  every  strange 
dog  or  other  animal  that  comes  along,  often  to  its  own 
hurt,  and  constantly  to  the  terror  and  discomfort  of  its 
friends.  We  are  prone  to  treat  temptations  in  that  way, 
and  some  of  us  persist  in  spite  of  severe  lessons,  and 
never  learn  better.  Samson  is  a  typical  instance  of  this 
form  of  human  weakness.  You  ought  to  let  him  warn 
you  against  fooling  with  temptation,  even  if  you  regard 
the  narrative  as  fiction ;  though  if  you  accept  his  warning 
you  will  probably  see  no  reason  for  denying  that  we  have 
in  this  narrative  the  actual  experiences  of  a  historical 
person. 


172  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

Samson  became  infatuated  with  the  game  which  he  and 

DeHlah  and  the  PhiUstine  lords  were  playing.     He  kept 

on  fooling  with  temptation.     Perhaps  he  said  to  himself 

that  he  was  safe  because  he  would  never 

amson  s    oss      ^^^  ^^  instant  think  of  giving  up  his  hold 

of  the  Game  .         ^    .   .         t->        ,  .         , 

on  the  Divme  Spirit.     But  his  playing 

with  temptation  gradually  weakened  that  hold  until  it 
failed.  Its  failure  was  followed  by  the  loss  of  its  out- 
ward emblem,  his  long  hair,  and  by  the  outward  fall  of 
the  man  himself. 

All  this  is  typical,  is  it  not  ?  and  replete  with  wholesome 
warning.  How  it  pictures  the  folly  of  bad  beginnings,  the 
dangers  that  beset  the  boy  of  promise,  who  knows  the 
right,  but  is  disposed  to  think  that  the  right  is  slow,  and 
that  he  wants  a  more  spicy  life !  It  illustrates  the  persist- 
ence of  the  grip  of  bad  beginnings  upon  their  victim. 
Persons  of  exceptional  strength  and  good  fortune  may, 
like  Samson,  accomplish  a  career  in  spite  of  bad  begin- 
nings, but  even  with  them  the  danger  never  ceases.  It 
illustrates  the  peril  of  being  reckless  for  fun,  and  the 
folly  of  deliberating  when  you  ought  to  say  "No."  There 
is  a  glory  in  the  final  victory  of  a  man  like  Samson,  who 
has  dallied  with  temptation,  and  has  been  entrapped,  and 
has  gone  wrong,  and  has  repented — the  man  who  illus- 
trates the  grace  of  God  even  in  extremities;  but  more 
glorious  is  the  victory  of  him  who  promptly  says,  "Get 
thee  behind  me,  Satan."  Jesus  is  a  better  example  than 
Samson. 


PART  III 


REASONABLE  CRITICISM  AND  ARCHEOLOGICAL 
DISCOVERIES 


CHAPTER  XIV 


CRITICISM   AND   CHRONOLOGY 

Introduction:  Confusion  concerning  Bible  chronology.  Repudia- 
tion of  Bible  numbers.  I.  The  Bible  way  of  counting  units 
of  time.  The  Bible  year.  Other  supposable  years.  Calendar 
units  versus  mere  units  of  measurement.  Korean  counting. 
The  differences  important  in  some  cases.  Accession  year 
versus  first  year.  These  points  as  affecting  the  Bible  num- 
bers. II.  The  successive  chronological  methods  in  the  Bible. 
I.  For  the  time  before  Abraham.  2.  For  the  time  from  Abra- 
ham to  the  exodus.  3.  The  forty-year  periods  of  and  after 
the  exodus.  4.  The  time-record  in  terms  of  the  reigns  of 
the  judges  and  early  kings.  5.  For  the  times  after  the  death 
of  Solomon.  III.  Views  that  are  prominentl}'  held.  "The 
Dated  Events  of  the  Old  Testament."  The  Ussher  chro- 
nolog>^  Its  carefulness.  Its  defects.  The  Assyrian  chronol- 
ogy. Its  materials.  Its  high  character.  The  conflict  between 
it  and  the  Bible.  Hints  in  regard  to  the  comparing  of  dates. 
The  Egyptian  chronology.     Literature. 

When  one  wishes  to  date  a  biblical  event  in  terms  of  the 
Christian  era,  he  commonly  does  not  work  out  the  date 
Confusion  Con-    ^^^  himself  from  the  statements  of  the 
ceming  Bible        Bible,  but  goes  to  some  book  of  reference 
Chronology  for  it.     The  books  of  reference  contain 

conflicting  schemes  of  Bible  chronology,  and  often  fail  to 
distinguish  between  them.  In  the  circumstances  it  is  not 
surprising  that  men's  ideas  of  the  chronology  are  exceed- 
ing confused. 

The  more  courageous  and  consistent  of  the  advocates 
of  the  prevailing  schools  of  criticism  have  here  no  hesita- 
tion.   They  hold  that  most  of  the  chronological  numbers 

175 


176  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

found  in  the  Bible  come  from  the  writers  whom  they  re- 
gard as  the  latest,  and  that  they  have  little  or  no  value. 
Repudiation  of     Many  who  would  not  state  the  matter 
the  Biblical  SO    boldly,    none    the    less    reach    prac- 

Numbers  tically  the  same  result.     They  begin  by 

saying  that  the  spiritual  lessons  do  not  depend  on  the  chro- 
nolog}^  They  speak  of  the  difficulty  of  being  absolutely 
correct  chronologically,  and  of  the  unimportance  of  slight 
inaccuracies.  They  speak  of  the  likelihood  that  such  a 
number  as  forty  may  be  used  as  a  round  number,  or  of  the 
ease  with  which  the  letter  that  stands  for  two  might  be 
mistaken  for  the  letter  that  stands  for  twenty.  And  then, 
on  the  basis  of  such  facts  as  these,  they  practically  reject 
most  of  the  numerals.  Thus  we  have  a  condition  of 
things  in  which  our  books  of  reference  date  biblical 
events,  in  many  cases,  by  numbers  which  contradict  those 
of  the  Bible ;  and  these  dates,  being  accepted  by  conserv- 
atives as  well  as  by  their  opponents,  cause  endless  con- 
fusion and  difficulty.  From  this  confusion  there  is  at 
present  no  escape  except  for  those  who  will  take  the 
trouble  to  work  out  the  dates  for  themselves.  All  others 
should  regard  all  the  dates  of  the  earlier  centuries  as  pro- 
visional, and  should  be  cautious  in  building  inferences 
upon  them. 

Fortunately,  the  greatest  values  in  chronology  are  those 
that  depend  on  synchronisms,  and  not  on  dates  in  an  era. 
In  many  cases  where  you  cannot  be  sure  of  the  date  B.  C. 
at  which  an  event  occurred,  you  can  nevertheless  be 
perfectly  sure  in  regard  to  the  contemporary  events  and 
their  interrelations. 

This  chapter  will  touch  upon  three  topics,  attention  to 


Criticism  ajtd  Chronology  177 

which  will  help  one  in  deciding  on  chronological  ques- 
tions.   First,  the  biblical  way  of  counting  units  of  time. 

The  ordinary  year  of  the  Bible  is  practically  the  inter- 
val between  one  spring  equinox  and  another.     For  most 

purposes  it  is  sufficiently  accurate  to  say 
The  Bible  Year    that  it  began  with  a  new  moon  in  March. 

It  contained  twelve  months,  perhaps  ap- 
proximately lunar  months,  with  a  thirteenth  month  when- 
ever this  was  necessary  in  order  to  keep  the  beginning 
of  the  year  from  getting  too  far  from  the  equinox. 
The  beginning  of  the  year  must  have  been  determined  by 
some  kind  of  observation  of  nature,  no  one  knows  what. 
The  Babylonians  and  Assyrians  used  the  same  year,  per- 
haps with  differences  in  details.  It  is  the  year  of  which 
our  month-names  September,  October,  November,  De- 
cember (seventh-month,  eighth-month,  etc.),  are  a  monu- 
ment.    {Dated  Events  of  the  Old   Testament,   Chapter 

m.) 

Other  kinds  of  years  have  been  in  use  among  peoples 
both  ancient  and  modern,  but  for  ordinary  purposes  of 
biblical  chronology  it  is  not  necessary  to  consider  the 
others. 

In  ancient  chronology,  biblical  or  ethnical,  the  way  in 
which  you   take  your  units   of   time   is   important.     In 
counting  how  many  years  an  event  oc- 
Time  Units        cupied,  you  may  take  the  calendar  year 
as  your  unit,  inquiring  how  many  calen- 
dar years  were  wholly  or  partly  covered  by  the  event ;  or 
you  may  use  the  year  simply  as  a  measure  of  time,  and 
apply  your  measure  at  the  point  of  time  when  the  event 
began.    We  moderns  commonly  use  the  latter  method,  and 


178  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

measure  time  by  years  and  fractions,  just  as  we  figure 
out  the  value  of  nine  and  a  half  pounds  of  sugar  at  five 
and  three-fourths  cents  a  pound.  For  the  moment  let 
us  call  this  the  grocery  method.  But  there  are  instances 
in  which  we  count  our  units  differently.  We  do  not  put 
a  stamp  and  a  half  on  a  letter  that  weighs  an  ounce  and  a 
half.  We  do  not  assign  nine  and  one-third  representatives 
to  the  state  that  has  nine  and  one-third  units  of  popula- 
tion. In  mileage  books  the  conductor  does  not  tear  off 
fractions  of  a  mile.  There  are  plenty  of  these  instances 
in  which  we  so  assume  our  units  that  we  count  a  frac- 
tional part  as  either  negligible  or  else  as  a  complete  unit. 
Call  this,  if  you  please,  the  post-office  method.  Then 
you  can  put  the  matter  thus :  the  Bible  counts  units  of 
time  by  the  post-office  method,  and  not  by  the  grocery 
method. 

This  is  probably  the  way  in  which  the  vast  majority 
of  mankind  still  counts  units  of  time,  for  most  purposes. 
In  Japan  and  Korea  they  count  a  person's  age  in  this  way. 
Mrs.  Underwood  says  of  her  boy :  ''He  was  not  six  years 
old,  Korean  count.  ...  In  that  country  ages  are 
counted  in  quite  a  different  way  from  ours.  .  .  .  You 
are  at  once,  as  soon  as  you  are  born,  one  year  old,  .  .  . 
One  is  just  as  old  as  the  number  of  years  during  any  part 
of  which  one  has  lived,  and  a  baby  born  on  the  thirty- 
first  of  December  would,  one  year  and  a  day  later,  on  the 
first  of  January,  be  three  years  old."  (Tommy  Tompkins, 
1905,  pp.  61,  62.) 

In  most  instances  the  differences  between  these  two 
ways  of  counting  neutralize  one  another,  so  that  the  two 
methods  reach  the  same  results.  But  in  some  instances  this 


Criticism  and  Chronology  179 

is  not  the  case.    If  a  king  began  to  reign  the  tenth  day  of 
June,  1842,  and  died  the  eighth  day  of  April,  1852,  his 

reign  was,  by  the  grocery  way  of  count- 
The  Differences        .     ^  '    /      .      ^  ^       /  . 

May  be  Important    ^"^'     ^"^   ^^    "^^^    ^^^^^^    "^"^    months, 

twenty-nine  days.  I  suppose  that  most 
persons  now  Hving  would  be  content  to  say  that  he 
reigned  ten  years.  But  by  the  post-office  way  of  count- 
ing he  reigned  nine  years  if  you  neglect  both  of  the 
fractions  of  a  year,  ten  years  if  you  count  one  fraction, 
and  eleven  years  if  you  count  both.  The  eleven  years 
would  be  the  calendar  years  1842  and  1852,  with  the 
nine  intervening  years. 

An  incident  of  this  way  of  counting  is  the  difference 
between  the  accession  year  of  a  king  and  his  first  year. 

By   the  grocery   method,  the   accession 

Year  of  Accession,                   .  .                                .  . 

jp.    ...          year  of  the  successor  of  our  supposed 

versus  First  Year      -^  ,  .7 

king  would  be  the  same  with  his  first 
year,  and  both  alike  would  be  the  year  beginning  the 
eighth  of  April.  By  the  post-office  method  his  accession 
year  would  be  the  calendar  year  1852,  and  his  first  year, 
probably,  the  calendar  year  1853.  With  people  who  had 
no  era  number  by  which  to  designate  a  year,  who  desig- 
nated their  years  by  saying  that  it  was  such  and  such  a 
year  of  such  and  such  a  king,  the  calendar  year  within 
which  a  king  died  was  already  named  for  that  king,  and 
the  following  calendar  year  was,  ordinarily,  the  first  year 
of  his  successor.  In  the  Bible,  in  such  instances  the 
broken  year  is  invariably  counted  to  the  outgoing  king, 
and  is  in  some  instances  counted  also  to  the  incoming 
king,  being  thus  counted  twice. 

In  such  cases  one  is  of  course  compelled  to  compute 


i8o  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

by  processes  of  tabulation,  either  written  or  mental ;  mere 
arithmetical  processes  of  addition  or  subtraction  or  aver- 
aging will  not  answer  the  purpose.  But  this  makes  no 
real  difficulty;  in  all  save  a  few  exceptional  cases  the 
data  for  understanding  the  numbers  are  unmistakable. 

Very  few  persons  who  have  studied  the  subject  will 
disagree  with  what  has  thus  been  said,  though  unfortun- 
ately many  neglect  these  points  when 
Kbt^Number,  ^^^  «"S='Se  in  practical  work.  In  par- 
ticular,  men  ignore  these  facts  when  they 
attack  the  numerals  of  the  Bible.  As  a  familiar  example, 
the  reigns  of  the  kings  of  Israel  from  Jeroboam  to  Jeho- 
ram,  as  given  in  the  books  of  Kings,  aggregate  98  years ; 
those  of  the  kings  of  Judah  for  the  same  period  aggregate 
95  years.  This  is  often  quoted  in  proof  that  the  numbers 
are  unreliable.  But  if  you  tabulate  the  numbers,  allow- 
ing the  ordinal  numbers  to  interpret  the  cardinal  numbers, 
you  will  find  all  the  data  clear  and  consistent,  and  will 
find  that  the  whole  number  of  years  is  neither  98  nor  95, 
but  just  90.  (See  Dated  Events  of  the  Old  Testament, 
pp.  126-134.)  Or  again,  some  persons  find  difficulty  with 
the  statement  (Matt.  12  :  40)  that  the  Son  of  man  shall 
"be  three  days  and  three  nights  in  the  heart  of  the  earth." 
The  writer  thought  of  the  three  calendar  units  which  we 
call  Friday  and  Saturday  and  Sunday  as  each  a  period  of 
twenty-four  hours ;  and  thought  of  Jesus  as  in  the  grave 
for  at  least  some  part  of  each  of  those  three  periods ; 
and  he  imputes  to  Jesus  the  same  way  of  computing  time. 
If  you  will  simply  accord  to  the  Bible  numbers  the  fair 
play  of  honestly  trying  to  understand  what  the  Bible 
authors  mean  by  them,  taking  into  account  the  ways  in 


Criticism  and  Chronology  i8i 

which  they  were  accustomed  to  compute  time,  you  will 
find  that  the  numbers  stand  the  test.  And  you  will  decide, 
in  the  circumstances,  that  this  amounts  to  more  than  a 
mere  removal  of  difficulties,  that  it  is  a  strong  positive 
accrediting  of  the  biblical  chronology. 

As  a  second  topic,  note  the  forms  assumed,  in  the  suc- 
cessive periods,  by  the  biblical  chronological  numbers. 

1.  The  tables  in  Genesis  5  and  11  :  10-26  have  com- 
monly been   regarded   as   chronological.     On   this  basis 

Pre-Abrahamic     Ussher  counts  1655  years  from  the  crea- 
Biblical  tion  to  the  deluge,  and  2083  years  from 

Chronology  the  creation  to  the  migration  of  Abra- 
ham. In  this  he  follows  the  Masoretic  Hebrew  text. 
Other  texts  lengthen  these  periods  by  a  few  centuries. 
But  it  is  now  commonly  held  that  we  have  traced  back  the 
authentic  history  of  Egypt  and  of  Babylonia  to  dates 
much  earlier  than  these,  even  if  we  accept  the  larger  num- 
bers as  correct.  Some  scholars  still  dispute  this,  but  it 
seems  to  me  that  these  tables  were  not  intended  to  be 
understood  as  chronological ;  that  they  are  among  the 
relatively  few  genuine  instances  of  personalized  history 
found  in  the  Bible ;  that  at  present  they  are  unintelligible 
to  us  through  our  lack  of  data ;  that  we  may  at  some  time 
obtain  additional  information  which  will  render  them 
intelligible ;  that  meanwhile  biblical  chronology  properly 
begins  with  Abraham. 

2.  For  the  period  from  the  migration  of  Abraham  to 
the  exodus  the  chronological  numbers  appear  in  terms  of 
the  lives  of  the  leaders,  supplemented  by  certain  "long 
numbers." 

Abraham  was  75  years  old  when  he  came  to  Canaan, 


182 


Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 


TOO  years  old  when  Isaac  was  born.  Jacob  was  born 
when  Isaac  was  60  years  old,  and  was  130  years  of 
Chronology,  ^^^  when  he  went  to  Egypt,  and  147 
Abraham  to  years  of  age  when  he  died.  Every  one 
the  Exodus  is  familiar  with  the  data  of  this  descrip- 
tion. In  addition  to  these  the  long  numbers  come  in. 
Israel  was  in  Egypt  exactly  430  years  (Exod.  12  :  40-41). 
The  Greek  copies  say  that  this  is  to  be  counted  from  the 
date  when  Abraham  migrated  to  Canaan.  Josephus  had 
copies  that  said  the  same  {^Ant.  11.  xv.  2).  Paul  appar- 
ently held  the  same  view  (Gal.  3  :  17).  If  this  is  the 
correct  view,  then  the  400  of  Genesis  15  :  13,  16  is  a 
round  number  of  approximately  the  same  value.  The 
coming  back  to  Canaan  "in  the  fourth  generation"  is  to 
be  explained  by  the  instances  that  actually  appear  in  the 
record — such  a  succession,  for  example,  as  that  of  Levi, 
Kohath,  Amram,  Aaron,  Eleazar  (look  them  up,  by 
concordance).  If  this  is  the  correct  view,  the  430  years 
was  about  equally  divided  between  the  actual  residence  in 
Egypt  and  the  preceding  residence  of  Abraham  and  Isaac 
and  Jacob  in  Canaan. 

I  regard  this  as  the  correct  view,  but  there  are  differ- 
ing opinions,  many  regarding  the  residence  in  Egypt  as 
covering  the  entire  430  years. 

3.  From  the  exodus  to  the  death  of  Gideon  the  chro- 
nology seems  to  be  counted  in  five  periods  of  40  years 
each,  the  other  numerals  that  are  given  being  included 
in  the  forties. 

No  one  questions  that  the  Bible  attributes  40  years  to 
the  wanderings  of  the  exodus.  As  to  the  time  record  for 
the  judges  there  is  great  diversity  of  opinion,  both  old  and 


Criticism  and  Chi^onology  i8 


J 


new.    The  record  says  that  480  years  intervened  between 
the  exodus  and  the   founding  of  Solomon's  temple    (i 
P£vg  Kings  6  ;  I ).    This,  with  the  forty  years 

Torty-Year       of    the    exodus,    the    three    forties    of 
Periods  the   life   of   Moses,   the   forty  years   of 

the  reigns  of  Saul  and  David  and  Solomon,  and  other  re- 
currences of  the  number  forty,  suggest  the  question 
whether  there  existed  a  system  of  counting  in  periods  of 
forty  years.  If  you  look  up  this  question  your  attention 
will  fix  itself  on  three  forties  and  a  double  forty  (Judg. 
3  :  II ;  5  :  31;  8  :  28;  3  :  30),  which  are  distinguished 
by  the  formula  attached  to  them,  "The  land  had  rest  forty 
years."  For  the  time  covered  by  these  forties  we  are  not 
told,  as  we  are  for  the  time  that  follows,  how  many  years 
the  administration  of  any  judge  lasted.  These  phenomena 
lead  me  to  think  that  these  particular  forties  are  consecu- 
tive periods,  covering  the  two  hundred  years  after  the 
exodus.  There  is  something  more  to  be  said  on  this 
point  in  connection  with  the  point  that  comes  next. 

4.  From  the  death  of  Gideon  to  that  of  Solomon  the 
time-record  is  made  mainly  in  terms  of  the  reigns  of  the 
judges  and  the  kings.  For  the  whole  time  from  the 
exodus  to  Solomon  there  are  supplementary  round  num- 
bers (i  Kings  6:1;  Judg.  11  :  26;  Acts  13  :  19). 

Reasons  have  already  been  given   for   regarding  the 

forty-year  periods  concerning  which  it  is  said  that  "the 

land  had  rest"  as  belonging  to  a  different 

.    Lt^T^d^       chronological   method    from   the    forties 

that  follow.     Making  this  distinction  it 

is   easy   to   understand   the   numbers    so   that   they   will 

total   the   480   of    i    Kings   6:1.      With   this    reckon- 


184  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

ing,  Samuel  died  434  years  after  the  exodus,  having  con- 
tinued all  his  life  to  be  judge  (i  Sam.  7  :  15),  though 
from  the  accession  of  Saul  the  judge  was  outranked  by 
the  king.  This  is  near  enough  to  Paul's  round  number 
450  (Acts  13  :  19).  On  this  reckoning  Jephthah's  con- 
tention with  Ammon  occurred  about  250  years  after 
Moses  conquered  the  Ammonite  territory  (Judg.  11  :  26). 
His  300  years  is  probably  a  correct  round-number  date 
for  Amnion's  loss  of  the  territory  to  the  Amorites  from 
whom  Israel  captured  it.  On  this  basis  every  number 
given  in  the  Bible  for  the  period  of  the  judges  falls  into 
place.  At  least  six  of  the  forties  are  shown  to  be  exact, 
and  though  some  of  the  other  forties  are  round  numbers, 
none  of  them  are  very  far  from  being  exact. 

Men  of  all  schools,  however,  take  different  views  from 
this.  The  conservatives  test  their  ingenuity  in  devising 
ways  of  understanding  and  adding  up  the  Bible  numbers 
so  as  to  make  them  agree;  their  opponents  frankly  reject 
the  Bible  numbers.  At  present  there  is  a  trend  toward 
making  the  period  much  shorter  than  the  Bible  makes  it. 

5.  From   the   death   of   Solomon   the   Old  Testament 

record  of  chronology  is  made  up  mainly  in  terms  of  the 

reigns  of  the  kings  of  Israel  and  Judah, 

. ./°"°  ^^^         and  of  the  Babylonian  and  Persian  kings, 
After  Solomon  -^  .  , 

supplemented  by  certam  long  numbers. 

That  in  the  New  Testament  appears  mainly  in  the  form  of 
scattered  information.  For  this  period  differences  of 
opinion  depend  on  questions  concerning  the  acceptance 
and  the  interpretation  of  particular  data. 

As  a  third  topic,  note  very  briefly  certain  views  that 
are  held  in  Bible  chronology. 


Criticism  and  Chronology  185 

My  own  individual  view  may  be  found  in  my  volume 
on  the  ''Dated  Events  of  the  Old  Testament,"  in  which 
these  various  topics  are  more  fully  discussed. 

The  view  which  has  had  the  field  for  many  generations 
is  that  of  Archbishop  Ussher.  It  is  mainly  based  on  a 
conscientious  and  exact  study  of  the 
Chronolo«^y  i^iaterials  found  in  the  Old  Testament. 
A  large  part  of  it  is  correct,  and  will 
never  be  superseded.  There  are  some  inaccuracies  due 
to  his  using  the  grocery  method  of  computation  instead 
of  the  post-office  method,  but  these  are  mostly  matters 
of  not  very  important  detail.  Ussher  makes  what  seems 
to  me  the  nearly  universal  mistake  of  counting  the  pre- 
Abrahamic  numbers  as  chronological.  Correctly,  as  it 
seems  to  me,  he  counts  430  years  from  Abraham  to  the 
exodus.  For  the  times  of  the  judges  he  ignores  the  dis- 
tinction concerning  the  forty-year  periods  when  the  land 
had  rest,  and  his  details  thus  become  very  different  from 
mine ;  but  he  accepts  the  480  years  from  the  exodus  to 
the  temple.  For  the  remaining  Old  Testament  chronology 
his  work,  in  addition  to  the  slight  inaccuracies  already  re- 
ferred to,  suffers  apparently  from  the  millennial  theory 
which  he  held. 

Ussher  believed  that  the  earth  was  created  just  4,000 
years  before  the  birth  of  Christ,  and  that  Solomon's 
temple  was  dedicated  just  1,000  years  before  the  birth 
of  Christ.  But  the  biblical  data,  in  their  most  obvious 
meaning,  give  1,007  years  as  the  time  between  the  dedica- 
tion of  the  temple  and  the  birth  of  Christ.  To  eliminate 
the  excess  of  7  years  Ussher  first  counts  the  first  11  years 
of  Jeroboam  II  of  Israel  as  overlapping  the  reign  of  his 


1 86  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

father,  thus  shortening  the  interval  by  ii  years.  This 
is  plausible,  provided  there  were  sufficient  reasons  for  it. 
Having  thus  made  the  interval  4  years  too  short,  Ussher 
puts  back  the  4  years,  one  at  a  time,  in  connection  with  the 
subsequent  events.  Thus  it  happens  that  in  a  large  num- 
ber of  instances  his  dates  differ  by  either  11  years  or  7 
years  or  4  years  from  those  obtained  by  the  most  natural 
interpretation  of  the  biblical  data. 

The  scheme  of  Ussher  is  essentially  biblical.     In  the 

field  against  it  is  what  we  may  denote  in  a  general  way 

by  the  term  ''the  Assyrian  chronology," 

Ch^  ^T'J  though  this  exists  at  present  in  the  form 
of  many  schemes  more  or  less  conflict- 
ing. From  as  early  as  the  time  of  Solomon  the  Assyrians 
kept  an  official  chronology,  in  which  the  years  were  desig- 
nated by  the  names  of  officers  appointed  for  the  purpose. 
In  addition  to  this  they  dated  events  by  the  regnal  years 
of  their  kings.  The  Babylonians  of  earlier  ages  had  lists 
of  kings,  with  the  years  of  their  reigns,  possessed  dated 
papers,  and  in  various  ways  had  made  notes  of  the  time 
when  events  had  occurred ;  so  that  the  Assyrian  chro- 
nologers  of  the  time  of  Sennacherib  and  later  possessed 
much  material  that  had  been  handed  down  to  them  from 
more  ancient  times.  Their  chronological  products  and 
habits  were  of  course  inherited  by  the  later  Babylonians 
who  succeeded  them.  It  is  beyond  doubt  that  the 
Assyrian  chronology  is  in  the  main  correct;  and  equally 
beyond  doubt  that  its  custodians  sometimes  made 
mistakes. 

Some  details  will  be  given  in  the  following  chapters. 
The  one  fact  which  one  must  fix  in  memory,  if  he  would 


Criticism  and  Chronology  187 

compare  dates  intelligently,  is  that  the  Assyrian  and  the 
biblical  chronologies  seem  to  be  sharply  in  conflict  for 
the  period  from  the  accession  of  Jeroboam  II  to  the  down- 
fall of  Samaria.  By  its  most  natural  interpretation  the 
biblical  count  of  years  for  this  period  exceeds  the 
Assyrian  by  51  years.  Conservative  scholars  attempt  to 
reconcile  the  two  by  schemes  in  which  the  biblical  num- 
bers are  made  to  overlap  one  another.  Their  opponents 
offer  the  simple  solution  which  consists  in  rejecting  most 
of  the  Bible  numbers  and  events.  My  individual  opinion, 
subject  to  revision  in  case  new  evidence  shall  be  discov- 
ered, is  that  the  biblical  dates  are  essentially  correct  and 
the  conflicting  Assyrian  statements  mistaken. 

However  you  settle  this,  you  need  to  be  on  your  guard 
when  you  compare  dates.    From  the  capture  of  Samaria 
back  to  Jeroboam  II  your  dates  for  bibli- 
Comparing  Dates  cal  events  are  merely  confused  conjecture 
in  case  you   follow  the  Assyrian  chro- 
nology.   For  all  time  before  that  you  need  to  make  fixed 
corrections  whenever  you  compare  an  Assyrian  date  with 
a  biblical.   Add  51  to  an  Assyrian  date  to  make  it  corre- 
spond with  the  biblical  date  as  most  obviously  computed ; 
add  40  if  you  agree  with  Ussher  in  shortening  the  reign 
of  Jeroboam  II ;  add  44  to  make  the  date  correspond  with 
an  actual  Ussher  date. 

Less  need  be  said  concerning  schemes  of  Bible  chronol- 
Egyptian  0^7  based  on  Egyptian  data.     The  dis- 

Chronological      tinctive  Egyptian  data  are  of  two  kinds 
Data  — year-cycles  and  the  maximum   regnal 

years  found  on  the  monuments.  If  one  finds  on  a  monu- 
ment the  mention  of  a  certain  year  of  a  certain  king,  that 


1 88  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

is  very  conclusive  proof  that  the  king  named  reigned  as 
long  as  that,  and  no  one  knows  how  much  longer.  In 
the  case  of  a  succession  of  kings  we  may  be  sure  that 
their  united  reigns  amounted  to  a  good  many  years  more 
than  the  aggregate  of  the  maximum  dates  that  explorers 
have  happened  to  find.  This  is  one  very  important  source 
of  information. 

The  other  source,  sometimes  called  astronomical,  is 
from  the  year-cycles.  The  Egyptian  year  of  365  days 
was  about  a  quarter  of  a  day  shorter  than  a  true  astro- 
nomical year.  If  a  year  began  at  the  heliacal  rising  of 
a  certain  star,  then  the  fifth  year  from  that  the  star 
would  appear  the  second  day  of  the  year,  and  the  ninth 
year  it  would  appear  the  third  day,  and  so  on  till  it  had 
appeared  in  every  day  of  the  year.  The  star,  and  with  it 
all  the  heavenly  bodies,  and  with  them  the  crop-seasons 
and  the  season  of  the  Nile  overflow,  would  wander 
through  the  entire  year,  or,  if  you  prefer,  the  beginning 
of  the  year  would  wander  through  all  the  seasons.  It 
would  take  1,461  of  these  years  of  365  days  to  equal 
1,460  years  as  marked  by  the  stars  and  the  seasons. 

It  follows  that  if  we  have  records  of  the  months  and 
days  in  which  astronomical  or  seasonal  phenomena  oc- 
curred In  Egypt,  that  may  enable  us  to 
Their  Weak  Point  compute  dates  with  mathematical  exact- 
ness. Many  schemes  of  this  kind  have 
been  devised,  and  with  successive  new  discoveries  the 
schemes  have  become  more  and  more  plausible.  It  is 
still  true,  however,  that  the  experts  contradict  one  an- 
other, and  that  the  alleged  astronomically  fixed  dates 
are  largely  Inconsistent  with  the  results  from  the  maxi- 


Criticism  and  Chronology  189 

mum  dates  found  on  the  monuments,  and  with  the  Baby- 
lonian and  Assyrian  data,  as  well  as  with  the  statements 
of  the  Bible. 

My  views  on  the  chronology  are  presented  in  ''Dated 
Events  of  the  Old  Testament"  (The  Sunday  School  Times 
Company,  1907).  Possibly  the  clearest 
Literature  presentation  of  the  Assyrian  official 
chronology  is  still  that  found  in  George 
Smith's  "Assyrian  Canon,"  or  in  the  "Assyrische  Leses- 
tiicke"  of  Friedrich  Delitzsch.  For  the  Egyptian  astro- 
nomical chronology,  study  the  first  volume  of  Breasted's 
"Ancient  Records,"  noting,  however,  that  it  is  no  part  of 
his  scheme  to  call  attention  to  what  many  regard  as  the 
insuperable  difficulties  inherent  in  his  chronology.  For 
practical  use,  however,  no  treatment  of  the  chronology  as 
a  whole  will  supersede  the  necessity  of  looking  up  par- 
ticular dates  in  detail  in  the  records  that  give  accounts 
of  the  events. 

The  literature  of  archeological  exploration  includes 
an  immense  number  of  meritorious  books  and  articles. 
The  best  work  in  the  recent  Bible  Dictionaries  and  Ency- 
clopedias is  found  in  their  articles  on  subjects  of  this 
kind — for  example  on  Assyria,  Babylonia,  Tiglath-pilezer, 
Sargon,  Sennacherib,  the  Moabite  Stone,  Egypt.  These 
articles  refer  to  sources  of  information  which  amount  to 
whole  libraries.  Especially  good  is  the  work  of  such  men 
as  King  and  Pinches  and  Johns  in  the  Encyclopedia 
Biblica. 

Among  books  that  give  the  texts  of  writings  that  have 
been  discovered,  the  "Altorientalische  Texte  und  Bilder 
zum  Alten  Testamente,"  by  Doctors  Gressmann,  Ungnad, 


I  go  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

and  Ranke,  is  probably  the  best  for  those  who  read  Ger- 
man. King's  ''Annals  of  the  Assyrian  Kings"  is  fine  for 
the  period  which  it  covers.  Breasted's  "Ancient  Records 
of  Egypt"  is  an  admirable  collection  of  one  class  of 
Egyptian  documents.  Exceedingly  good  is  Pinches'  'The 
Old  Testament  in  the  Light  of  the  Historical  Records  of 
Assyria  and  Babylonia,"  and  King's  "Chronicles  Con- 
cerning Early  Babylonian  Kings."  Schrader's  "Cunei- 
form Inscriptions  and  the  Old  Testament"  is  still  useful. 
And  one  cannot  yet  dispense  with  the  "Records  of  the 
Past,"  the  old  series  and  the  new  series,  published  by  the 
Bagsters.  George  Smith's  "Assyrian  Discoveries"  is  not 
entirely  out  of  date.  And  there  is  a  whole  library  of 
archeological  works  of  greater  or  less  merit. 


CHAPTER  XV 

A  LINE  OF   SYNCHRONOUS    HISTORY 

Introductory,  I.  A  standard  for  comparison.  List  of  dated 
Assyrian  events.  II.  Bible  events  as  tested  by  this  standard. 
I.  Cryptoagnostic  view  of  the  matter.  2.  General  com- 
parison. The  events  are  historical,  not  fabricated.  The 
Assyrian  record  affords  background  and  key  to  the  biblical. 
3.  Particular  incidents.  Before  the  Sennacherib  afifair.  Tig- 
lath-pilezer.  Pekah.  Hoshea.  Shalmanezer.  Capture  of 
Samaria.  Ahaz,  The  Sennacherib  affair.  Analysis  of  the 
Bible  narrative.  Common  misapprehensions.  The  dates  of 
particular  incidents.  "That  night."  The  particulars.  Heze- 
kiah  and  the  Philistines.  Sargon's  Ashdod  expedition.  The 
fourteenth  year  of  Hezekiah.  Hezekiah  and  Merodach-bala- 
dan.  The  great  invasion  by  Sennacherib.  The  subsequent 
events  from  a  contemporary  point  of  view.     Literature. 

No  archeological  discoveries  are  more  important  for 
Bible  criticism  and  interpretation  than  those  concerning 
historical  events  which  synchronize  with  events  mentioned 
in  the  Scriptures.  In  dealing  with  these,  two  opposite 
mistakes  are  to  be  avoided:  first,  the  claiming  of  exact 
synchronisms  where  they  do  not  exist;  second,  the  being 
content  with  a  general  comparison  in  cases  where  the 
synchronism  might  be  made  exact. 

In  this  chapter  we  take  up  a  prolonged  period — that 
from  the  biblical  Tiglath-pilezer  to  Sennacherib. 

To  obtain  a  time  standard,  note  first  a  few  dates,  in 
calendar  years  beginning  with  the  spring  equinox,  taken 
from  Assyrian  documents. 

191 


192  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

B.  C.  763.  Tenth  year  of  Asshur-daan  III  of  Assyria. 
An  eclipse  of  the  sun  June  15,  fixing  this  and  subsequent 
dates. 

B.  C.  755.  Death  of  Asshur-daan  and  accession  of 
Asshur-nirari  II. 

B.  C.  745.  Tiglath-pilezer  succeeded  Asshur-nirari  in 
April.  He  was  a  usurper,  and  must  have  been  for  many 
years  previous  a  distinguished  general  and  public  man. 
In  this  year  he  made  a  hard-fought  and  successful  in- 
vasion of  Babylonia. 

In  B.  C.  744  he  again  invaded  Babylonia.  Possibly  he 
at  once  adopted  the  title  of  king  of  Babylonia  (Schrader, 
Cuneiform  Inscriptions  and  the  Old  Testament,  1885, 
Vol.  I,  p.  241). 

In  each  of  the  four  following  years  he  was  fighting  at 
Arpad,  not  quite  200  miles  north  of  Damascus,  and  thus 
within  striking  distance  of  Syria  and  Palestine.  Dr. 
Johns  says  ("Arpad"  in  Enc.  Bib.)  that  he  "finally  sub- 
jugated and  Assyrianized  Arpad." 

In  B.  C.  739  he  was  in  Ulluba,  far  from  the  JMediter- 
ranean. 

In  B.  C.  738  he  captured  Kul-unu,  probably  the  biblical 
Calno,  and  probably  in  the  same  region  with  Arpad. 

In  B.  C.  737,  736,  735,  he  was  far  from  Palestine,  but 
presumably  maintained  his  forces  in  the  Arpad  region. 

In  B.  C.  734  he  invaded  Philistia.  In  B.  C.  733  he  in- 
vaded Damascus.  In  B.  C.  732  he  was  again  in  Damascus 
as  an  invader.  About  that  time  the  reigning  dynasty  in 
Babylon  was  displaced  by  the  Chaldean  Ukin-zer. 

In  B.  C.  731  Tiglath-pilezer  invaded  Babylonia.  In 
B.  C.  729  he  became  king  of  Babylonia.    In  B.  C.  727,  late 


A  Line  of  Synchronous  History         193 

in  December,  his  son  Shalmanezer  IV  succeeded  him  as 
king  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria. 

In  December  in  B.  C.  722  Shalmanezer  died,  and  the 
usurper  Sargon  became  king  of  Assyria.  He  credits  him- 
self with  many  and  great  exploits  during  this,  his  acces- 
sion year,  though  he  was  on  the  throne  less  than  three 
months  of  it.  Apparently  he  does  not  distinguish  care- 
fully between  the  exploits  which  he  performed  in  his  own 
name  and  those  which  he  performed,  earlier  in  the  year, 
as  the  general  of  Shalmanzer.  Among  the  exploits  of 
the  year  was  his  capture  of  Samaria. 

In  B.  C.  720  he  defeated  the  Samaritans,  in  alliance 
with  other  nations,  in  the  decisive  battle  of  Raphia. 

Merodach-baladan,  a  man  of  ambition  and  ability,  had 
submitted  to  Tiglath-pilezer ;  but  at  the  death  of  Shal- 
manezer he  made  himself  king  of  Babylon.  He  and 
Ummanigash,  king  of  Elam,  and  others  kept  Sargon  busy 
in  the  far  east  from  B.  C.  720  to  712.  It  was  character- 
istic of  the  methods  of  Merodach-baladan  that  he  sent 
envoys  everywhere  to  stir  up  rebellion  against  Assyria. 

In  B.  C.  711  occurred  Sargon's  celebrated  expedition 
against  Ashdod. 

In  B.  C.  710  he  overthrew  Merodach-baladan,  and  be- 
came king  of  Babylon. 

In  B.  C.  705,  on  the  twelfth  day  of  the  month  that 
began  in  July,  Sennacherib  succeeded  his  father  on  the 
throne  of  Assyria.  Merodach-baladan  disputed  his  right 
to  the  throne  of  Babylon,  and  others  made  trouble  for 
him.  A  temporary  settlement  was  reached  by  Sen- 
nacherib's making  Bel-ibni  king  of  Babylon.  These 
events  kept  him  busy  in  the  east  for  three  or  four  years. 


194  Reasonable  Biblical  Criiicism 

In  B.  C.  701  occurred  his  great  invasion  of  the  regions 
on  the  Mediterranean. 

In  B.  C.  700  he  invaded  Babylonia.  The  Babylonian 
leaders  fled  in  ships  to  the  Elamite  coast  of  the  Persian 
Gulf,  taking  their  gods  writh  them.  Sennacherib  made  his 
son  Asshur-nadin-shuma  king  instead  of  Bel-ibni. 

In  B.  C.  698  he  built  vessels  on  the  Tigris,  invaded 
Babylonia  and  Elam,  and  brought  back  the  fugitive  gods. 
In  B.  C.  697  the  army  v^hich  he  was  leading  against  Elam 
was  crushed  by  a  winter  storm.  This  is  the  one  remark- 
able exception  to  the  rule  that  the  Assyrian  records  omit 
disasters.  In  B.  C.  696  Sennacherib  was  still  fighting  in 
Elam  and  Babylonia.  In  B.  C.  694  the  Elamites  de- 
throned Asshur-nadin-shuma.  In  B.  C.  693  Sennacherib 
devastated  Elam  and  Babylonia.  In  B.  C.  691  the  fight- 
ing was  on  a  tremendous  scale,  and  both  sides  claim  the 
victory.  In  B.  C.  689  Sennacherib  sacked  and  nearly 
destroyed  Babylon.  From  that  time  he  seems  to  have 
reigned  over  Babylonia  for  eight  years,  leaving  the 
sovereignty  to  his  son  Esar-haddon. 

Have  these  dates  before  you,  so  that  you  can  refer  to 
them,  while  you  study  the  record  in  the  Bible  (2  Kings 
14  :  23  to  20  :  21 ;  2  Chron.  26-32 ;  and  parallel  pas- 
sages). 

I  cite  a  single  instance  as  fairly  representing  a  vast 
amount  of  current  assertion  concerning  the  biblical  narra- 
tive for  this  whole  period.     "The  only 
Cryptoagnostic    j^j^^j.^    j  accounts  of  the  campaign  of 

Estimates  ^  ,       „  .  t     1   1  1 

Sennacherib    agamst   Judah    are    to   be 

found  in  the  cuneiform  inscriptions  of  Sennacherib  and 

in  the  short  extract"  in  "2  Kings  18  :   I3b-i6."     ,     .    , 


A  Line  of  Synchronous  History         195 

"the  rest  of  the  Hebrew  narrative  is  to  be  accounted  for" 
as  "imaginative  and  didactic."  {Enc.  Bib.  Col.  4369).  To 
the  contrary  of  this  I  venture  to  affirm  that  a  fair  com- 
parison of  the  bibhcal  accounts  with  the  Assyrian  proves 
that  the  bibhcal  record  is  minutely  true  to  fact,  as  well  as 
didactically  true. 

To   begin   with,    some   dozens   of   the   persons   and 
places  and  events  mentioned  in  the  Bible  are  also  men- 
The  Events  Not    tioned  in  the  Assyrian  records  ;  and  their 
Fabricated,  but     interrelations   as   presented    in    the   two 
Historical  records  are  essentially  the  same.     As  a 

single  typical  fact,  the  Bible  vividly  sets  forth,  as  char- 
acterizing Tiglath-pilezer  and  his  successors,  their  policy 
of  deporting  populations  as  distinguished  from  the  taking 
of  captives.     This  policy,  with  numerous  instances  and 
details,  is  conspicuous  in  the  records  of  these  kings.     A 
large  number   of   similar  points   might  be  made.     The 
Assyrian  documents  prove  beyond  dispute  that  the  Scrip- 
tures are  a  presentation  of  historical  materials,  whether 
you  regard  the  presentation  as  true,  or  false,  or  fictional. 
Further,  the  Assyrian  records  provide  a  background  for 
the  biblical  events,  enabling  us  to  put  them  together  con- 
A  Key  to  the      secutively,  in  a  way  that  was  formerly 
Succession         impossible.      Some    generations    before 
of  Events  Tiglath-pilezer    northern    Israel,    under 

Jehu,  had  become  tributary  to  Assyria.  Then  the 
Assyrian  supremacy  waned,  making  possible  the  brilliant 
successes  of  Jeroboam  II,  the  last  real  king  of  the  dynasty 
of  Jehu.  Probably,  however,  the  dynasty  remained  at 
least  nominally  loyal  to  Assyria.  As  the  Assyrian  records 
are  commonly  translated,   they  have   something  to   say 


196  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

concerning  Azariah  (Uzziah),  king  of  Judah.  They  say- 
that  the  whole  Mediterranean  region,  under  his  leader- 
ship, revolted  against  Assyria.  This  revolt  is  not  ex- 
plicitly mentioned  in  the  Bible,  but  it  is  an  event  which 
dovetails  into  the  biblical  account.  Near  the  time  of  the 
death  of  Jeroboam,  Amos  tells  us,  the  Assyrian  power 
was  reviving. 

The  Bible  numbers  indicate  that  there  was  an  inter- 
regnum in  Israel  after  Jeroboam  died.  The  prophet 
Hosea  had  a  program  to  the  effect  that  the  nation  should 
"abide  many  days  without  king  and  without  captain," 
until  Israel  and  Judah  could  unite  under  a  king  of  the 
house  of  David  (Hos.  3  :  4-5).  Meanwhile  the  land  was 
full  of  Assyrian  intrigue  {^e.  g.  Hos.  5:  I3;7:  ii;8: 
9) .  At  length  the  pro-Assyrian  party  prevailed,  and  placed 
on  the  throne  Zechariah  of  the  line  of  Jehu  (2  Kings  15, 
16,  cf.  the  situations  sketched  in  the  successive  chapters 
of  Hosea).  The  anti- Assyrian  party  presently  overthrew 
him,  and  made  Shallum  king.  In  a  month  he  was  over- 
thrown by  the  pro-Assyrian  Menahem ;  and  at  this  point 
the  Assyrian-Israelitish  synchronisms  become  expressly 
matters  of  record.  Each  record  illuminates  the  other, 
both  in  outline  and  in  matters  of  detail.  Proof  of  the 
correctness  of  the  dates  here  assigned  may  be  found  in 
my  ''Dated  Events  of  the  Old  Testament,"  pages  140-150. 

Tiglath-pilezer  is  mentioned  (i  Chron.  5:6,  26;  2 
Kings  15  :  29  and  16  :  7,  10;  2  Chron.  28  :  20)  as  de- 
porting northern  and  eastern  Israelites,  and  as  receiving 
the  submission  of  Ahaz  of  Judah.  He  is  also  mentioned 
under  the  name  Pul  as  taking  tribute  from  Menahem, 
and  as   deporting  eastern   Israelites    (2   Kings   15  :  19; 


A  Line  of  Synchronous  History         197 

I   Chron.  5  :  26).     Note  that  the  Menahem  events  are 
presented  as  a  different  group  from  those  in  which  Ahaz 

and   Pekah  are  concerned.     Parallel  to 
Tiglath-pilezer     this  there  is  one  set  of  records,  attributed 

by  Assyriologists  to  Tiglath-pilezer,  in 
which  he  speaks  of  tribute  from  Menahem  and  of  the 
overthrow  of  the  anti-Assyrian  combination  under  Aza- 
riah ;  and  a  dift'erent  set  of  records  in  which  he  speaks  of 
Ahaz  and  Pekah. 

If  we  accept  the  Bible  numbers  we  must  hold  that 
Uzziah  and  Menahem  both  died  several  years  before  the 
accession  of  Tiglath-pilezer;  and  therefore  that  Tiglath- 
pilezer  was  Pul,  a  general  of  Asshur-daan,  when  he  fought 
Uzziah  and  made  Assyria  an  expensive  ally  of  Menahem. 
This  is  not  an  unlikely  inference.  It  is  confirmed  by  the 
use  of  the  earlier  name  Pul  in  Kings.  There  is  nothing  to 
forbid  the  idea  that  this  part  of  Tiglath-pilezer's  own 
record  is  retrospective. 

According  to  the  Bible  numbers  Menahem  reigned  ten 
years,  and  was  succeeded  by  his  son  Pekahiah.  After  two 

years  the  anti-Assyrian  party  in  Israel 
Pekah  was  Strong  enough  to  overthrow  him  and 

make  Pekah  king.  This  was  perhaps  due 
to  the  feebleness  of  Asshur-daan  in  his  closing  years. 
His  successor,  Asshur-nirari,  reigned  ten  years.  His 
reign  was  weak  enough  so  that  Tiglath-pilezer  was  able 
at  its  close  to  overthrow  the  dynasty.  In  these  circum- 
stances Assyria  was  not  prompt  in  interfering  with  Pekah. 
According  to  the  Bible  numbers  he  reigned  twenty  years. 
He  and  Rezin  of  Damascus  were  in  alliance  against 
Assyria.    The  four  years  when  Tiglath-pilezer  was  oper- 


198  Reasonable  Bibhcal  Criticism 

ating  against  Arpad  must  have  been  anxious  years  for 
them.  When  he  was  away  from  the  region  in  B.  C.  739, 
the  year  when  Ahaz  succeeded  Jotham  in  Judah,  Rezin 
and  Pekah  invaded  Judah,  purposing  to  enthrone  there  a 
king  of  their  own  poUtical  stripe  (Isa.  7  :  6  and  parallels 
in  Kings  and  Chron.  and  Isa.),  and  thus  strengthen  the 
anti-Assyrian  coalition.  Ahaz,  refusing  Isaiah's  counsel, 
placed  himself  under  the  protection  of  Tiglath-pilezer, 
who  gave  him  no  real  help,  though  he  marched  into  the 
region  and  chastised  Rezin  and  Pekah.  Presumably 
these  operations  of  his  began  in  B.  C.  738,  the  first  year 
of  Ahaz,  the  year  when  Tiglath-pilezer  captured  Calno. 
In  the  years  directly  following  we  may  be  sure  that  his 
forces  and  his  intriguers  were  still  in  the  Mediterranean 
region,  though  he  himself  was  in  the  far  east. 

The  author  in  Kings  follows  his  account  of  Tiglath- 

pilezer's   capture  of   Israelite   cities   with  the   statement 

that  Hoshea    conspired    against    Pekah, 

Hoshea  "and  slew  him  and  reigned  in  his  stead, 

in  the  twentieth  year  of  Jotham  the  son 

of  Uzziah."     The  statement  of  the  date  is  peculiar,  but 

it  can  have  only  one  meaning,  and  in  f^at  meaning  it 

agrees  with  the  other  biblical  data  in  making  the  reign 

of  Hoshea  begin  not  directly,  when  he  slew  Pekah,  but 

nine   years   later.     This   has   always   been   regarded   as 

puzzling. 

Tiglath-pilezer's  account  of  the  matter  is:  "Pekah 
their  king  .  .  .  slew;  Hoshea  I  put  in  command 
over  them."  Owing  to  mutilation  the  record  does  not  in- 
form us  who  slew  Pekah.  Tiglath-pilezer  does  not  say 
that  he  made  Hoshea  king,  though  he  put  him  at  the  head 


A  Line  of  Synchronous  History         199 

of  affairs  in  some  capacity.  The  hypothesis  which  natur- 
ally combines  all  these  statements  is  that  Hoshea  was 
Assyrian  viceroy  till  the  death  of  Tiglath-pilezer,  and  then 
assumed  the  state  of  king,  and  attempted  to  throw  off 
the  Assyrian  yoke;  being  viceroy  nine  years  and  king 
nine  years. 

"'Against  him  came  up  Shalmanezer  king  of  Assyria, 
and  Hoshea  became  his  servant  and  rendered  him  tribute" 
(2  Kings  17  :  3).  This  may  possibly  refer  to  an  expedi- 
tion of  which  we  have  at  present  no  Assyrian  account, 
made  early  in  the  reign  of  Shalmanezer;  but  if  it  refers 
to  the  invasion  in  B.  C.  722  it  agrees  with  what  the 
Assyrian  records  say  was  done  in  that  year ;  though  the 
Assyrian  record  gives  additional  particulars,  and  in  it 
Sargon  does  not  distinguish  between  what  he  did  as 
general  of  Shalmanezer  and  what  he  did  in  his  own  name 
after  he  succeeded  Shalmanezer. 

The  Bible  record  says  that  Hoshea  conspired  with  So, 

king  of  Mitsraim,  and  that  the  Assyrian  king  "came  up 

throughout  all  the  land,"  captured  Sama- 
Final  Capture         .        .,  •  r  .i  j  ,i 

-  c        •  J"ia  after  a  sies^e  of  three  years,  and  then 

of  Samana  *=■  -^  '       ^  _ 

and  subsequently  deported  the  inhabi- 
tants of  the  region,  and  imported  others  to  take  their 
places.  The  biblical  date  for  the  final  capture  is  B.  C. 
718,  not  the  Ussher  date  "about  B.  C.  721."  This  is  easily 
proved  to  any  one  who  cares  to  look  the  matter  up.  The 
first  year  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  B.  C.  604,  was  the  fourth 
year  of  Jehoiakim,  king  of  Judah.  Samaria  was  taken 
the  sixth  year  of  Hezekiah,  and  Hezekiah  reigned  twenty- 
three  years  after  that.  Now  604  plus  3  years  of  Jehoia- 
kim, plus  31  years  of  Josiah,  plus  2  years  of  Amon,  plus 


200  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

55  years  of  Manasseh,  plus  23  years  of  Hezekia'h,  equal 
718  B.  C,  the  year  when  Samaria  was  taken. 

In  this  matter  the  bibHcal  and  the  Assyrian  accounts 
differ  much  in  their  details,  but  all  the  details  without 
manipulation  harmonize  into  a  complete  account.  Sargon 
dates  the  defeat  of  the  Samaritans,  in  alliance  with  "Sib'e, 
sultan  of  Mitsri,"  and  others,  in  B.  C.  720.  He  says  noth- 
ing of  the  three  years'  siege  of  Samaria,  but  he  would 
naturally  begin  the  siege  soon  after  the  defeat  of  the 
allies,  so  that  the  three  years  would  be  B.  C.  720,  719, 
718.  He  emphasizes  greatly  the  business  of  deporting 
and  importing  inhabitants.  That  his  Sib'e  is  the  So  of 
the  Bible  is  believed  even  by  those  who  dispute  the  identi- 
fication of  this  king  with  Shabaka  of  Egypt. 

As  we  have  already  seen,  the  early  part  of  the  reign 
of  Ahaz,  king  of  Judah,  when  he  sent  in  his  submission 
to  Tiglath-pilezer,  coincides  in  time  with 
Ahaz  Tiglath-pilezer's  operations  when  he  cap- 

tured Calno,  B.  C.  738.  The  Bible  ac- 
count emphasizes  the  going  of  Ahaz  to  Damascus  to  meet 
Tiglath-pilezer.  Perhaps  the  most  natural  date  for  that 
is  in  B.  C.  733  or  732,  after  Tiglath-pilezer's  expedition 
to  Philistia,  and  during  one  of  his  two  expeditions  to 
Damascus,  that  is,  in  the  sixth  or  seventh  years  of  Ahaz. 
What  the  Bible  says  concerning  the  capture  of  Damascus 
and  the  deportation  of  its  people  (2  Kings  16  :  9  and 
parallels)  may  be  understood  as  a  summary,  including 
events  of  differing  dates.  The  punishments  inflicted  upon 
Damascus  are  also  mentioned  in  the  Assyrian  accounts. 

The  king  whose  relations  with  Assyria  are  most  fully 
set  forth  in  the  Bible  is  Hezekiah ;  and  he  is  also  the  one 


A  Line  of  Synchro7ious  History         201 

Israelite    concerning  whom  the  Assyrian    accounts    say 
more  than  concerning  any  other.     There  Is  no  case  in 

which  we  more  need  to  distinguish  be- 
Hezekiah        tween  what  the  Bible  actually  says  and 

what  people  commonly  think  that  it 
says.  The  Bible  speaks  with  evident  commendation  of 
Hezekiah's  rebellion  against  Assyria,  but  it  does  not  say 
that  the  rebellion  was  a  success  from  a  worldly  point  of 
view.  The  details  it  gives  show  that  the  rebellion  was  not 
In  that  sense  a  success.  It  does  not  represent  that  Judah 
became  permanently  independent  of  Assyria.  The  great 
deliverance  of  which  it  speaks  consisted  in  Sennacherib's 
being  unable  to  carry  out  his  purpose  to  deport  the  whole 
population ;  up  to  that  limit  it  represents  that  Judah  suf- 
fered all  manner  of  defeat  and  distress  and  humiliation. 

A  glance  at  the  literary  structure  of  the  Sennacherib- 
Merodach-baladan  narrative  (Isa.  36-39,  duplicated  in  2 

Kings  18-20  and  referred  to  in  2  Chron. 
The  Sennacherib         \         -n    i    i  •  j       i.      j-  v^ 

N  rr  tiv  ^^^  P   ^^   ^^   understandmg   its 

contents.  It  is  a  narrative  In  which  are 
imbedded  three  short  poems  (Isa.  37  :  7,  22b-29;  38  : 
9-20),  together  with  certain  predictions  of  Isaiah  that 
have  a  less  pronounced  poetical  form.  The  purpose  of 
the  narrative  is  to  preserve  these  imbedded  materials, 
and  to  make  them  homlletically  effective.  To  effect 
this  It  gives  an  account  of  the  circumstances  in  which 
they  were  uttered.  Presumably  it  was  written  on  some 
particular  occasion.  As  it  assumes  throughout  that  the 
events  it  mentions  are  familiar,  the  occasion  was  not 
much  later  than  the  events.  For  the  sake  of  being  con- 
crete let  us  make  the  hypothesis  that  it  was  written,  by 


202  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

Isaiah  or  some  disciple  of  his,  when  the  news  of  the 
death  of  Sennacherib  reached  Palestine,  twenty  years 
after  the  great  invasion.  The  alternative  is  that  it  was 
written  on   some  other  like  occasion. 

The  writer  dates  the  sickness  of  Hezekiah  in  his  four- 
teenth year  (2  Kings  20  :  6;  cf.  18  :  2).  He  gives  the 
same  year  for  an  invasion  by  Sennacherib  (Isa.  36  :  i  ;  2 
Kings  18  :  13),  the  invasion  being  earlier  than  the  sick- 
ness (Isa.  38  :  (^',2  Kings  20  :  6).  In  this  Hes  a  difficulty, 
since  the  Assyrian  date  for  the  great  invasion  is  nine  years 
later.  Either  the  two  are  in  contradiction,  or  else  there 
were  two  invasions,  and  the  Bible  omits  the  date  for  the 
second.  The  second  of  these  alternatives  is  not  inadmis- 
sible. To  be  sure  there  is  nothing  in  Isaiah  2)^  :  i  and 
2  Kings  18  :  13-16  to  suggest  that  they  refer  to  events 
different  from  those  described  in  the  verses  that  follow ; 
but  equally  there  is  nothing  that  forbids  this  interpreta- 
tion. There  would  be  the  less  occasion  for  dating  the 
second  invasion,  inasmuch  as  the  prophet  is  dealing  with 
events  which  he  and  his  hearers  remember.  We  will 
provisionally  assume  that  there  were  two  invasions,  the 
alternative  being  that  the  Bible  date  is  an  inadvertence. 

The  common  idea  seems  to  be  that  the  Bible  says  that 
there  was  a  miraculous  destruction  of  the  Assyrians  in 
Palestine,  resulting  in  the  immediate  re- 
M^llntelpretatio^^  habilitation  of  Judah,  SO  that  the  last 
years  of  Hezekiah  were  years  of  crowd- 
ing and  happy  prosperity.  That  is  as  far  from  correct 
as  possible.  The  Bible  says  that  those  who  escaped  were 
a  mere  remnant,  and  that  the  recession  of  the  calamity 
was  so  slow  that  agriculture  was  not  fully  resumed  till 


A  Line  of  Syjichronous  History  203 

the  third  year  (2  Kings  19  :  29-31).  Judah  came  out 
morally  victorious,  but  stripped  and  exhausted  and  barely 
surviving.  Hezekiah's  years  of  wealth  and  prosperity 
(2  Chron.  2>'^  :  27-30)  were  mainly  years  that  preceded 
the  great  invasion. 

Many  imagine  that  the  Bible  says  that  Sennacherib  re- 
turned from  Palestine  a  defeated  man,  and  was  directly 
afterward  assassinated.  It  does  not  say  so.  It  makes 
sharply  the  point  that  Jehovah  compelled  him  to  leave 
Judah  with  his  purpose  unaccomplished,  and  that  Jehovah 
brought  him  to  a  violent  death;  but  it  makes  no  intima- 
tion as  to  whether  the  interval  was  one  of  a  few  weeks 
or  of  many  years.  In  fact,  his  death  occurred  about 
twenty  years  after  he  left  Judah. 

The  Bible  accounts  speak  of  "that  night"  when  Jeho- 
vah inflicted  judgment  on  the  Assyrian,  when  185,000 
perished,  including  "leaders  and  captains"  (2  Kings  19  : 
35 ;  Isa.  37  :  36;  2  Chron.  32  :  21),  but  they  do  not  say 
whether  this  happened  before  Sennacherib  left  Palestine. 
Nothing  could  be  more  flimsy  than  the  attempt  often 
made  to  identify  this  occurrence  with  mice  gnav/ing  bow- 
strings somewhere  to  the  soi»thwest  of  Judah.  The 
prophetic  writers  attribute  Assyria's  calamity  to  Jehovah, 
but  they  do  not  specify  when  and  where  it  occurred. 

These  matters  being  presupposed,  the  narratives  need 

not  delay  us  long.     Hezekiah  inherited  from  Ahaz  the 

Sargon's  position  of  vassal  to  the  king  of  Assyria. 

Expedition       He   rebelled,   and    in  the   Bible  account 

toAshdod         this    is    coupled    with    his    smiting    the 

Philistines  (2  Kings  18  :  7-8).    We  may  be  sure  that  he 

did  not  rebel  during  the  first  six  years  of  his  reign,  while 


204  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

Sargon's  armies  were  in  the  land,  defeating  allied  nations 
and  besieging  Samaria.  Hezekiah  had  his  opportunity  in 
the  years  that  followed,  when  Sargon's  hands  were  full 
warring  with  Merodach-baladan  and  the  Elamites  and 
Medes  and  Armenians.  That  we  are  correct  in  this  in- 
ference we  learn  from  Sargon's  account  of  his  celebrated 
expedition  against  Ashdod  (see  Isaiah  20),  in  B.  C.  711, 
his  eleventh  year  and  the  thirteenth  year  of  Hezekiah. 
He  says  that  "the  people  of  Philistia,  Judah,  Edom  and 
Moab  .  .  .  were  speaking  treason,"  and  he  describes 
his  thorough  subjugation  of  the  Philistines. 

If  we  understand  from  the  Bible  that  there  were  two 
invasions  of  Judah  by  Sennacherib,  the  first  of  the  two 
.  occurred  the  year  after  Sargon  was  at 

Sennacherib?  Ashdod.  The  Assyrian  records  do  not 
formally  mention  it,  but  it  is  astonishing 
if,  in  the  circumstances,  Sargon  let  Judah  go  entirely  free. 
If  his  son  Sennacherib  led  the  expedition,  the  credit  of 
it  might  be  ascribed  to  either.  It  is  not  easy  to  give  a 
better  explanation  of  Sargon's  title,  "subjugator  of 
Judah."  The  book  of  Kings  mentions  the  fine  which 
Hezekiah  paid  on  this  occasion,  and  it  is  different  from 
the  fine  which  the  Assyrian  accounts  say  that  he  paid  at 
the  time  of  the  great  invasion.  The  outcome  was  that 
Hezekiah  found  his  fortresses  surrendering,  and  himself 
unable  to  resist,  and  therefore  made  his  submission. 

Later  in  the  year,  however,  Hezekiah  showed  cordiality 
to  the  ambassadors  of  Merodach-baladan.  It  is  a  com- 
ment on  Isaiah's  displeasure  at  this  that  within  the  same 
year  Sargon  captured  Merodach-baladan,  and  made  him- 
self king  of  Babylon. 


A  Line  of  Synchronotcs  History         205 

Sargon,  however,  was  kept  busy  in  the  east,  and  when 
he  died  Sennacherib  had  to  fight  hard  to  maintain  him- 
The  Great  ^elf  in  Babylonia.    This  opened  the  way, 

Invasion  by  through  a  series  of  years,  for  Hezekiah 
Sennacherib  to  renew  his  revolt.  This  time  he  exer- 
cised, the  Assyrian  records  show,  a  controlling  anti- 
Assyrian  influence  over  the  Philistines.  It  was  not  till 
his  twenty-third  year,  B.  C.  701,  that  Sennacherib  was 
able  effectively  to  meet  the  situation.  His  accounts  of 
what  happened  are  full,  and  have  been  unusually  well 
preserved.  Barring  a  few  details  that  are  mere  brag  on 
his  part,  his  record  and  that  of  the  Bible  are  mutually 
illuminative  and  confirmatory,  though  his  record  claims 
an  unbroken  series  of  successes.  He  says  that  he  shut 
Hezekiah  up  like  a  caged  bird  in  Jerusalem.  That  is  not 
a  bad  description  of  the  situation  in  which  the  biblical 
account  begins.  The  Bible  account  does  not  even  for- 
bid our  thinking  that,  at  this  stage  of  the  affair,  Jerusalem 
may  have  been  besieged.  It  was  not  to  be  expected  that 
Sennacherib  would  record  the  fact  that  his  plan  was  to 
deport  the  whole  population  of  Judah,  and  that  it  failed ; 
or  that  he  left  Judah  under  compulsion.  What  he  says 
is  that  he  deported  immense  numbers,  that  he  defeated 
Hezekiah's  Egyptian  allies  at  Eltekeh,  that  he  permitted 
Hezekiah  to  buy  peace  on  humiliating  terms,  that  he  re- 
turned from  Palestine  and  was  presently  fully  occupied 
with  revolts  and  wars  in  the  far  east.  What  the  Bible 
says  is  that  he  would  hear  a  rumor  that  would  draw  him 
away  from  Jerusalem;  that  he  would  not  thereafter  be 
able  to  lay  siege  to  the  city;  that  Jehovah,  the  God  of 
nations,  would  put  a  hook  in  his  nose  and  lead  him  back 


2o6  Reasonable  Biblical  C7^iiicis7n 

by  the  way  by  which  he  came ;  that  finally  he  would  die 
by  the  sword  in  his  own  land ;  that  Judah,  now  at  the 
point  of  extinction,  would  slowly  recuperate.  The  rec- 
ords are  complementary,  and  both  are  true  to  fact. 

Look  from  the  point  of  view  of  a  subject  of  Hezekiah. 
In  the  latter  part  of  the  vernal  year  corresponding  to 
From  a  ■^-  C.  701   he  witnessed  the  withdrawal 

Contemporary     of  Sennacherib  and  most  of  his  forces 
Viewpoint  from  Judah,  because  Jehovah  had  stirred 

up  wars  against  the  Assyrian  in  the  east.  Thenceforward 
he  watched  for  news,  and  was  disappointed  when  the 
news  came  that  the  Babylonians,  instead  of  putting  up 
a  stout  resistance,  had  fled  with  their  gods  to  Elam. 
Things  were  still  in  disorder  in  Palestine,  and  it  now 
seemed  that  Sennacherib  might  soon  return  to  carry  out 
his  plans  for  deportation.  In  the  circumstances  the 
people  of  Judah  had  no  heart  for  industry,  and  their 
agriculture  languished.  By  another  year,  however,  they 
were  reassured,  and  the  condition  of  their  industries  be- 
came more  encouraging.  They  looked  in  vain,  however, 
for  Jehovah's  threatened  vengeance  on  their  enemy,  Sen- 
nacherib. He  seemed  successful.  He  maintained  his 
son  upon  the  throne  of  Babylon.  He  created  a  navy, 
and  sailed  to  the  shores  of  the  Persian  gulf,  and  brought 
back  the  fugitive  Babylonian  gods.  But  when  four  years 
had  passed  the  news  came  to  Judah  that  Sennacherib 
with  a  vast  army  had  been  overtaken  in  the  mountains 
by  cold  and  storm,  and  his  army  so  nearly  destroyed 
that  he  was  obliged  to  desist  from  his  expedition  and 
return  to  Nineveh.  The.  Assyrian  records  do  not  say 
that  those  who  perished  were   185,000  men.     I  cannot 


A  Line  of  Synchronous  History         207 

prove  that  the  people  of  Judah  thought  of  this  event 
as  "that  night"  when  the  Angel  of  Jehovah  avenged  them 
of  their  great  enemy.  But  at  all  events  the  news  came 
to  them,  and  they  had  their  thoughts  concerning  it. 

In  the  succeeding  years  they  heard  of  military  suc- 
cesses on  the  part  of  Sennacherib,  but  Jehovah's  hook 
was  still  in  his  nose  to  prevent  his  resuming  operations 
against  Judah.  Six  years  after  he  left  Palestine,  Manas- 
seh  succeeded  Hezekiah,  and  reversed  his  religious  pol- 
icy, but  his  people  were  still  interested  in  the  news  from 
Sennacherib.  His  violent  death  occurred  while  men 
who  had  listened  from  the  Jerusalem  walls  to  his  insult- 
ing envoys  were  still  warriors  in  their  prime.  What  bet- 
ter opportunity  could  a  contemporary  prophet  have  for 
emphasizing  the  lessons  taught  by  his  career? 

See  ''Literature"  at  the  close  of   Chapter  XIV.     In 

the  works  there  mentioned,  or  in  other  works,  read  all 

the  translations  you  can  find  of  the  rec- 

Literature        ords     of     the     biblical     Tiglath-pilezer, 

Sargon,  and   Sennacherib.     From  these 

and   from  George   Smith's  ''Assyrian   Canon,"   or  some 

equivalent  work,  verify  for  yourself  the  order  and  the 

dates  of  the  Assyrian  events.    Compare  your  results  with 

those  printed  in  the  several  articles  in  the  Encyclopedia 

BibHca  and  in  "Dated  Events  of  the  Old  Testament." 

Then  work  out  the  biblical  dates  and  the  synchronisms 

for  yourself. 


CHAPTER  XVI 


A    FEW    ADDITIONAL    SYNCHRONISMS 

Introduction :  The  principles  under  which  independent  records 
are  mutually  confirmatory.  I.  Shalmanezer  II  and  the 
dynasty  of  Omri.  The  records  of  the  Bible  and  those  of 
Shalmanezer.  The  data  that  fix  the  synchronism.  Coinci- 
dences in  details.  Coincidences  in  the  outline  of  the  history. 
Shalmanezer's  earliest  years.  His  fourth  year.  His  sixth 
year.  His  subsequent  years.  II.  The  Moabite  stone.  What 
does  Mesha  mean  by  the  "son"  of  Omri?  Questions  con- 
cerning numerals.  Mesha's  defeats  by  Israel  some  years 
earlier  than  the  victories  he  claims  over  Israel.  The  Moabite 
stone  compared  with  2  Kings  lo  :  32  and  13  :  20.  III.  The 
"Burden"  in  Isaiah  14  :  28-32.  "A  nation's  messengers"  and 
the  reply  to  them.  Illusive  expectations.  Differing  interests 
of  Philistia  and  of  Zion.  How  these  points  fit  the  date,  the 
fourth  year  of  Shalmanezer  IV.    Summary.    Literature. 

Certain  principles  touching  synchronous  events  were 
illustrated  in  the  preceding  chapter,  though  not  there  dis- 
tinctively mentioned.     Note  some  of  these  principles. 

Consider  the  mutually  corroborative  value  of  two  in- 
dependent records.    We  have  an  account  of  some  event, 
Independent      handed  down  to  us  in  the  Bible.    Unex- 
Records  Test      pectedly   another   account   of   the   same 
Each  Other        event  is  dug  up  in  the  valley  of  the  Nile, 
or  of  the  Euphrates  or  Tigris.     The  two  accounts  are 
absolutely    independent,    and    that   gives    them    decisive 
value  for  testing  one  another.    If  the  two  essentially  dis- 
agree, that  proves  that  one  or  both  are  incorrect.     We 
208 


A  Few  Additio7ial  Synchronisms        209 

must  either  choose  between  them  or  disbelieve  both. 
Even  in  this  case,  however,  they  corroborate  one  another 
to  the  extent  of  completely  proving  the  existence  of  the 
fact  or  idea  which  constitutes  their  original  common 
basis. 

If  the  two  records  ordinarily  disagree,  but  agree  one 
time  in  a  hundred,  they  still  discredit  one  another;  the 
one  agreement  may  be  explained  as  a  remarkable  coinci- 
dence. 

But  if  they  essentially  agree  they  corroborate  one  an- 
other decisively,  and  not  merely  in  some  lower  degree. 
You  cannot  account  for  their  telling  the  story  alike  except 
on  the  hypothesis  that  both  tell  it  correctly.  It  is  sup- 
posable  that  the  thing  in  which  they  agree  might  be 
merely  the  contents  of  some  ancient  legend,  but  in  most 
of  the  cases  it  is  clear  that,  actually,  the  agreement  con- 
cerns matters  of  fact.  Other  things  being  equal,  the  more 
minute  the  agreements  the  stronger  the  confirmation. 

If  the  new  record  throws  light  upon  the  old,  and  com- 
pels a  new  interpretation  of  it,  that  may  awaken  suspicion 
and  require  scrutiny;  but  if  the  case  endures  the  scru- 
tiny, that  strengthens  the  corroboration. 

It  is  a  mistake  to  confine  the  argument  from  synchro- 
nisms to  the  particular  events  which  the  two  records  men- 
tion in  common ;  one  should  interpret  these  by  the  whole 
line  of  the  history. 

There  has  been  a  great  deal  of  mistaken  reasoning 
from  synchronisms  by  both  the  assailants  and  the  de- 
fenders of  the  biblical  record;  but  that  does  not  in  the 
least  change  the  value  of  the  argument  when  properly 
used. 


2IO  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

With  these  principles  in  mind,  look  at  a  few  instances 
in  addition  to  those  mentioned  in  the  preceding  chapter. 

I.  We  begin  with  the  records  of  Shalmanezer  II,  of  As- 
syria, as  compared  with  the  biblical  record  of  the  times 
of  the  dynasty  of  Omri  (i  Kings  i6  :  15  to  2  Kings  10  : 

36). 

The  Bible  narrative  does  not  mention  Assyria  in  con- 
nection with  these  times.    Until  the  recovery  of  the  rec- 
ords of   Shalmanezer  no  one  suspected 

^,   ,  --  Assyrian  interference  with  Israel  at  this 

Shalmanezer  II  -^  . 

date  exceptmg  as  some  scholars  mferred 
such  interference  from  the  contents  of  the  eighty-third 
Psalm.  And  yet  the  truth  is  that  Assyrian  interference 
was  the  great  political  issue  of  the  time,  dwarfing  all  other 
issues.  We  have  here  a  particularly  significant  instance 
of  the  fact  that,  however  truthful  may  be  the  historical 
materials  preserved  in  the  Bible,  they  were  never  designed 
to  be  taken  as  in  themselves  a  complete  history. 

The  recovered  records  of  Shalmanezer  are  full,  and 
describe  his  exploits  year  by  year.  Among  them  is  the 
celebrated  ''black  obeHsk,"  with  its  portrait  of  Jehu  bring- 
ing tribute.  In  the  absence  of  proof,  let  us  gratify  our- 
selves by  regarding  the  portrait  as  authentic.  Accounts 
of  these  records,  with  illustrations,  may  be  found  in  cur- 
rent books  of  reference.  In  reading  them,  work  out  the 
dates  for  yourself  when  you  can,  and  distrust  all  dates 
which  you  cannot  verify.  Remember  that  the  years,  in 
both  the  biblical  and  the  Assyrian  records,  are  not  mere 
measures  of  time,  but  calendar  years. 

The  Assyrian  date  for  the  sixth  year  of  this  Shalma- 
nezer is  B.  C.  854.     The  biblical  date,  according  to  the 


A  Few  Additional  Synchronisms         2 1 1 

most  obvious  understanding  of  the  numbers,  is  B.  C.  905 

(see  Chapter  XIV).    It  is  possible,  however,  to  define  the 

synchronism    exactly,    without    settling 
Data  Independent    ^^^  ^^^^   .^  ^^^^  ^^^^^  ^^   ^^  ^^^       ^^^^_ 

of  Theories  .        i  •         •      i 

manezer    says    that    m    his    sixth    year 

he  fought  the  allied  kings  Benhadad  of  Damascus,  and 
Ahab  of  Israel,  and  that  in  his  eighteenth  year  he  re- 
ceived tribute  from  Jehu.  The  Bible  says  that  Ahab 
reigned  22  years,  and  his  successor  Ahaziah  2  years,  and 
his  successor  Joram  12  years,  Jehu  coming  to  the  throne 
the  twelfth  of  those  years.  It  follows  that  Shalmanezer's 
eighteenth  year  was  not  earlier  than  the  twelfth  year  of 
Joram,  and  his  sixth  year  therefore  not  earlier  than  the 
year  before  the  first  year  of  Joram.  The  Bible  gives 
checking  numbers  which  show  that  Ahaziah's  2  years 
were  the  twenty-first  and  twenty-second  years  of  Ahab, 
Ahaziah  reigning  only  a  fraction  of  a  year  after  the 
death  of  Ahab,  and  being  succeeded  by  Joram  before  the 
year  closed.  The  year  before  the  first  year  of  Joram  can- 
not have  been  earlier  than  the  twenty-first  year  of  Ahab. 
That  is  to  say,  the  sixth  year  of  Shalmanezer  cannot  have 
been  earlier  than  the  twenty-first  year  of  Ahab.  Also  the 
sixth  year  of  Shalmanezer  cannot  have  been  later  than 
the  twenty-first  year  of  Ahab ;  for  the  following  year  was 
Ahab's  last,  and  in  it  he  was  at  war  with  Benhadad 
(i  Kings  22  cf.  16  :  29),  and  therefore  not  in  alliance 
with  him  against  Shalmanezer.  This  justifies  two  con- 
clusions. First,  the  synchronism  is  exact;  second,  in 
this  group  of  numbers  both  records  are  correct. 

Of  course,  It  is  supposable  that  a  closer  examination 
of  particulars  might  show  that  this  interfitting  of  data 


212  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

IS  merely  a  wonderful  coincidence,  and  not  a  genuine  mark 
of  reality.     In  fact,  however,  the  particulars  sustain  the 
synchronism.      For   instance,    the    Bible 
Parti    1  ^^^^  ^^^  Ahab  died  in  his  twenty-sec- 

ond year,  the  seventh  year  of  Shalma- 
nezer;  this  is  in  keeping  with  the  fact  that  Shalmanezer 
does  not  mention  Ahab  after  that,  though  he  several 
times  mentions  the  coalition  to  which  Ahab  had  belonged. 
If  you  ask  why  Ahab  should  associate  Ahaziah  with  him- 
self on  the  throne  in  his  twenty-first  year,  the  Assyrian 
invasion  in  that  year  offers  a  plausible  answer.  The 
Bible  says  that  Hazael  succeeded  Benhadad  not  many 
months  earlier  or  later  than  the  beginning  of  Joram's 
twelfth  year,  which  was  the  eighteenth  year  of  Shal- 
manezer. This  fits  Shalmanezer's  claim  that  he  fought 
Benhadad  and  his  coalition  in  his  sixth,  tenth,  eleventh, 
and  fourteenth  years,  while  in  the  record  of  his  eighteenth 
year  Benhadad  and  the  coalition  have  disappeared,  some 
of  the  former  allies  are  paying  tribute,  and  Hazael  ap- 
pears. Such  coincidences  are  not  accidental;  they  indi- 
cate that  both  narratives  are  true  to  fact. 

The  course  of  the  history  as  a  whole  indicates   the 

same.     From  very  early  times  it  was  the  custom  of  the 

numerous    petty    kings    on    the    eastern 

.."*iJ!!^°  coast  of  the  Mediterranean  to  combine 

the  History  ^  ,  .... 

their   forces,   m  case  of  mvasion   from 

Egypt  or  Assyria,  under  the  leadership  of  some  one  king, 

to  resist  the  invader.     Shalmanezer  says  that  he  fought 

such  a  coalition,  with  Benhadad  at  its  head  and  Israel  as 

one  of  the  allied  nations.    Such  a  coalition  was  fine.    The 

trouble  was  that  in  the  years  when  the  great  invader  did 


A  Few  Additional  Synchronisms        213 

not  press  these  nations,  they  broke  out  into  local  wars 
one  with  another.  The  few  political  incidents  found  in 
the  books  of  Kings  mostly  concern  these  local  wars. 

During  his  first  four  years  Shalmanezer  did  great  fight- 
ing in  conquest  of  Akhuni,  the  son  of  Adini,  whose  do- 
mains lay  on  both  sides  of  the  Euphrates.  In  his  first 
year  he  marched  to  the  Mediterranean.  In  his  second 
and  third  years  he  crossed  the  Euphrates,  capturing 
towns,  exacting  tribute,  devastating,  in  the  regions  just 
north  and  east  of  Damascus  and  Hamath  and  Israel. 
The  peoples  of  the  region  were  alarmed,  and  took  meas- 
ures for  combining,  in  accordance  with  their  old  tradi- 
tions. In  order  to  render  their  resistance  to  Assyria  ef- 
fective, one  king  must  be  leader,  and  he  must  temporarily 
have  dictatorial  power.  If  any  nation  refused  to  join 
the  coalition,  it  must  be  compelled.  Presumably  Ben- 
hadad  and  Ahab  both  aspired  to  the  leadership.  Ahab 
may  have  been  sulky  when  Benhadad  was  preferred. 

With  this   situation  in  mind  study  the  events  which 

the  book  of  Kings  (i  Kings  20  cf.  22  :  1-2)  assigns  to  the 

nineteenth    year    of    Ahab — the    fourth 

\^  "5*  -^       year  of    Shalmanezer.     Benhaded   with 
Chapter  20  '  ,  .  ,       .  ^  •         tt- 

thirty-two  kmgs  besieges  Samaria.     His 

authority  is  such  that  he  can  displace  the  kings  and  put 
captains  in  their  stead  over  their  forces  (20  :  24). 
Ahab  and  his  advisers  are  willing  to  make  an  absolutely 
unconditional  surrender,  but  they  will  fight  to  the  death 
rather  than  submit  to  a  slight  indignity  in  connection  with 
the  surrender.  The  record  is  perplexing,  but  Shalma- 
nezer has  cleared  it  up  for  us.  They  see  the  need  of  a 
dictator,  for  purposes  of  resistance  to  Assyria,  and  they 


2  14  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

consent  to  accept  Benhadad  in  that  capacity.  For  those 
purposes  they  belong  to  him,  silver  and  gold  and  wives 
and  children ;  but  that  gives  him  no  liberty  to  treat  them 
as  anything  less  than  allies  and  equals.  Benhadad's  folly 
led  to  the  slaughter  of  tens  of  thousands  of  good  men 
whom  he  sorely  needed,  later,  when  he  met  Shalmanezer 
in  battle. 

The  fifth  and  sixth  years  of  Shalmanezer  and  the  first 
part  of  his  seventh  year  were  "three  years  without  war 
between  Syria  and  Israel"  (i  Kings  22  :  i).  The  first 
of  these  years  of  peace  was  due  to  Ahab's  victories  over 
Benhadad;  in  the  second  Ahab  was  under  Benhadad 
fighting  against  Shalmanezer.  In  the  third,  Shalma- 
nezer's  seventh  year,  he  was  fighting  near  the  sources  of 
the  Tigris ;  and  Ahab  and  Benhadad,  finding  themselves 
free  from  immediate  danger  from  him,  entered  upon  the 
war  at  Ramoth-Gilead.  In  his  eighth  and  ninth  years  he 
operated  in  Babylonia,  while  Syrian  armies  worried 
Israel.  In  his  tenth  and  eleventh  years  he  fought  the 
Benhadad  coalition  again.  Agriculture  in  the  northern 
parts  of  Israel  became  precarious,  and  the  Shunammite 
woman  went  to  the  land  of  the  Philistines  (2  Kings  8  : 
1-6).  There  came  a  time  when  Benhadad  again  besieged 
Samaria,  but  no  longer  at  the  head  of  thirty-two  kings 
(2  Kings  6,  7).  Among  the  nations  of  the  coalition  dis- 
trust had  taken  the  place  of  confidence,  and  Benhadad 
suspected  that  Israel  and  the  Hittites  and  the  Egyptians 
had  formed  a  counter  coalition.  It  became  evident  that 
when  Shalmanezer  came  again  Tyre  and  Sidon  and  Israel 
would  escape  invasion  by  the  payment  of  tribute.  The 
Shunammite  woman  returned  to  her  home  in  the  north. 


A  Few  Additional  Sy7ichro7iisms        215 

In  the  eighteenth  year  of  Shalmanezer,  when  Jehu  had 
exterminated  the  house  of  Omri,  he  hastened  to  enrol 
Israel  among  the  tributary  nations.  Syria-Damascus, 
with  Hazael  for  king,  still  held  out.  Shalmanezer  gained 
victories  over  the  Syrians  in  his  eighteenth  and  his 
twenty-first  years,  but  Hazael  so  far  held  his  own  as  to 
be  formidable  to  the  neighboring  nations  which  had  be- 
come tributary  to  Assyria. 

II.  As  another  instance,  study  the  celebrated  Moabite 
stone.  You  may  find  full  accounts  of  it,  with  illustra- 
tions, in  the  Bible  Dictionaries  and  other 

The  Moabite        r       i  r         r  Ti_    •  •      ^ 

-.,  books   of    reference.      It   is   an   ancient 

Stone 

stone  inscribed  with  a  record  of  the  ex- 
ploits of  the  king  Mesha  who  is  mentioned  in  the  third 
chapter  of  2  Kings.  It  contains  the  following  passage, 
as  translated  by  Dr.  Driver  in  the  Encyclopedia  Biblica: 

"Omri,  king  of  Israel,  afflicted  Moab  for  many  days. 
.  .  .  And  his  son  succeeded  him ;  and  he  also  said,  I 
will  afflict  Moab.  In  my  days  said  he  [thus]  ;  but  I  saw 
(my  desire)  upon  him,  and  upon  his  house,  and  Israel 
perished  with  an  everlasting  destruction.  Omri  took  pos- 
session of  the  land  of  Mehedeba,  and  it  (/.  c,  Israel) 
dwelt  therein,  during  his  days,  and  half  his  son's  days, 
forty  years;  but  Chemosh  [resto]red  it  in  my  days." 

The  rest  of  the  inscription  is  made  up  of  accounts  of 
building  operations  by  Mesha,  alternating  with  accounts 
of  cruel  exploits  performed  against  regions  in  Israel. 

In  these  lines  what  does  Mesha  mean  by  the  ''son"  of 
Omri?  Does  he  refer  exclusively  to  Ahab?  Or  is  he 
thinking  of  the  line  of  Omri,  including  Ahaziah  and 
Joram  as  well  as  Ahab?    There  is  nothing  forced  in  this 


2i6  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

question.    When  Mesha  says  that  he  saw  his  desire  upon 
the  son  of  Omri,  ''and  upon  his  house,  and  Israel  per- 
ished  with   an   everlasting  destruction," 
be^Understood  °   ^t  is  more  natural  to  refer  the  words  to 
the    extinction    of    the    dynasty    under 
Joram  than  to  the  violent  death  of  Ahab. 

Mesha  says  that  the  forty  years'  occupation  of  Medeba 
extended  through  half  of  the  days  of  Omri's  son,  that 
is,  through  a  part  of  his  days,  the  word  "half"  indicating 
a  division  into  two  parts,  but  not  necessarily  two  equal 
parts.  If  Mesha  refers  exclusively  to  Ahab,  the  numeral 
is  in  conflict  with  those  of  the  Bible,  which  assigns  less 
than  thirty-four  years  to  the  combined  reigns  of  Omri 
and  Ahab;  but  the  conflict  vanishes  if  we  understand  that 
Mesha  has  in  mind  the  line  of  Omri  to  the  end  of  the 
dynasty. 

There  have  been  dozens  of  published  treatments  of  this 
subject,  and  many  of  them  emphasize  certain  alleged  dis- 
crepancies between  the  Bible  record  and 

^^^^^      .        the  Moabite  stone.     They  insist  that  its 
DiscrepaLticies  .  .  .11      tti  1 

''forty  years    is  m  conflict  with  the  Bible 

numbers,  or  else  that  it  must  be  understood  as  a  virtually 
meaningless  round  number.  They  count  it  as  a  contra- 
diction that  the  Bible  represents  Israel  as  victorious  over 
Moab,  while  the  Moabite  stone  represents  Moab  as  vic- 
torious over  Israel. 

Instead  of  skipping  to  conclusions  like  these,  let  us  see 
what  we  can  make  of  the  matter  on  the  supposition  that 
both  records  are  correct.  That,  surely,  is  the  reasonable 
way  of  dealing  with  such  a  problem.  According  to  the 
Bible  numbers  the  dynasty  of   Omri   lasted   forty-four 


A  Few  Additional  Synchronisms        217 

years.  There  is  room  for  the  forty  years  of  the  occupa- 
tion of  Medeba,  if  it  began  early  in  the  reign  of  Omri, 
and  closed  an  appreciable  time  before  the  death  of  Joram. 
The  room  is  wider  if  you  count  the  forty  as  a  round  num- 
ber, and  the  actual  number  of  years  as  somewhat  less. 

The  Bible  says  that  in  the  early  part  of  the  reign  of 
Joram  he  and  Jehoshaphat  were  victorious  over  Moab. 
Mesha  says  nothing  in  contradiction  with  this.  He  says 
that  some  years  later  in  the  reign  of  Joram  the  Israelitish 
occupation  of  Medeba  ceased.  It  is  presumably  signifi- 
cant that  he  does  not  claim  that  he  himself  had  any  hand 
in  bringing  it  to  an  end,  or  in  overthrowing  the  Omri 
dynasty.  He  claims  no  successes  over  Israel  till  several 
years  later  than  his  defeat  that  is  mentioned  in  2  Kings. 
He  leaves  it  uncertain  whether  any  of  his  successes  oc- 
curred before  the  change  of  dynasty  in  Israel. 

Whether  before  or  after,  we  may  be  perfectly  sure, 
even   without   information,   that   Mesha   made   common 

Mesha  cause    with    Damascus    against    Israel. 

Synchronous      Some  of  the  exploits   recorded   on  the 

with  Jehu  Moabite  stone  may  be  included  in  the 

following  biblical  summary  concerning  the  time  of  Jehu: 

'Tn  those  days  Jehovah  began  to  cut  off  from  Israel; 
and  Hazael  smote  them  in  all  the  borders  of  Israel ;  from 
the  Jordan  eastward,  all  the  land  of  Gilead,  the  Gadites 
and  the  Reubenites  and  the  Manassites,  from  Aroer, 
which  is  by  the  valley  of  the  Arnon,  and  Gilead  and 
Bashan"  (2  Kings  10  :  32-33). 

Interpret  this  by  the  incident,  a  few  years  later,  when 
''the  bands  of  the  Moabites  invaded  the  land  at  the  com- 
ing in  of  the  year,"  and  a  frightened  burial  company 


2i8  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

slipped  the  corpse  into  the  grave  of  EHsha  (2  Kings  13  : 
20).  It  is  with  these  bibhcal  items,  and  not  with  those 
of  the  time  of  Jehoshaphat,  that  most  of  the  contents  of 
the  Moabite  stone  are  parallel.  And  the  results  of  com- 
paring these  records  confirm  alike  the  historicity  and  the 
correctness  of  both. 

III.  In  Isaiah  14  :  28-32  is  a  little  poem,  there  desig- 
nated as  a  "Burden,"  and  dated  ''the  year  that  King 
Ahaz  died." 

In  verse  32  is  the  question,  "And  what  shall  one  answer 

a  nation's  messengers?"     The  implication  is  that  some 

nation   has   been    sending   envoys,    with 

ccasion  o         proposals  that  call  for  an  answer.    From 
this  Prophecy  .  . 

the  answer  given  we  infer  that  some  of 

Jehovah's  people  are  in  affliction,  and  that  the  proposals 
made  are  ostensibly  for  their  benefit.  The  answer  to  be 
given  declines  the  proposed  plans,  whatever  they  may 
be.  It  says  that  Zion,  founded  by  Jehovah,  is  a  sufficient 
refuge  for  the  afflicted,  and  there  is  no  need  of  consider- 
ing any  other  help. 

We  have  a  basis  for  inferences  as  to  the  nature  of  the 
proposals  made  by  the  envoys.  "The  rod  that  smote"  the 
region  is  broken.  The  rod  thus  spoken  of  can  be  nothing 
else  than  the  great  oppressing  power  of  the  Euphrates- 
Tigris  region.  The  prophet  says  that  the  hopes  from  the 
breaking  of  the  rod  will  prove  illusive.  If  you  compare 
the  oppressing  power  to  a  serpent,  its  successor  will  be  a 
worse  serpent.  It  will  still  pour  its  armies  into  Palestine 
from  the  north,  disciplined  armies  of  which  it  is  true 
that  "there  is  no  straggler  in  his  ranks." 

In  this  matter  the  poem  represents  that  Philistia  has 


A  Few  Additional  Synchronisms        219 

an  interest  different  from  that  of  Zion.  It  is  Philistia 
that  especially  rejoices  over  the  breaking  of  the  rod. 
Concerning  the  sequel  the  poem  says  of  the  afflicted  ones 
of  Zion,  *'The  firstborn  of  the  poor  shall  feed,  and  the 
needy  shall  lie  down  in  safety,"  while  it  says  of  Philistia, 
*'I  will  kill  thy  root  with  famine,  and  thy  remnant  shall 
be  slain.  Howl,  O  gate !  Cry,  O  city !  Thou  are  melted 
away,  O  Philistia,  all  of  thee." 

The  little  poem  does  not  say  whether  the  "messengers 
of  a  nation"  have  brought  the  news  to  Jerusalem,  or 
whether  it  has  reached  Jerusalem  through  some  other 
channel.  Whether  they  brought  the  news  or  not,  we  are 
compelled  to  infer  that  their  errand  is  to  invite  Judah  to 
take  action  in  view  of  the  news,  probably  to  invite  Judah 
to  enter  into  an  alliance  against  the  oppressing  power, 
which  now  shows  signs  of  being  broken.  Now,  they  say, 
is  Judah's  opportunity.  The  writer  of  the  poem  takes 
the  contrary  view. 

How  do  these  points  fit  the  date  assigned  to  the  poem  ? 

In  the  year  when  Ahaz  died,  the  accession  year  of  Heze- 

kiah,  we  may  be  sure  that  Judah  was  ac- 
Does  the  Date  Fit  -ri       -       ^i  i-    •  r     i-  i  •   i- 

.       P  ft*    1      ?  cessible   to   the   religious    feeling   which 

manifested  itself  the  following  year  in 
the  great  passover  of  Hezekiah.  So  far,  clearly  the  fit  is 
complete.  Is  there  also  a  synchronism  with  foreign 
events  ? 

The  year  when  Ahaz  died  was  the  fourth  regnal  year 
of  Shalmanezer  IV,  king  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria,  the 
son  of  the  great  conqueror  Tiglath-pilezer.  The  close 
of  the  year  was  a  few  months  before  the  death  of  Shal- 
manezer.    We  have  no  information  as  to  what  occurred 


2  20  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticisfii 

in  those  months,  but  we  know  the  general  character  of 
the  events  by  inevitable  inference ;  certain  movements 
were  in  progress  that  ripened  immediately  on  the  death 
of  Shalmanezer.  On  his  death  his  vassal  Merodach- 
baladan  seated  himself  on  the  throne  of  Babylonia,  and 
Sargon  usurped  the  throne  of  Assyria.  We  are  ignorant 
of  the  details.  But  we  know  that  the  little  Palestinian 
nations  must  have  been  on  the  alert  for  news.  Months 
before  the  denouement  they  doubtless  had  some  knowl- 
edge of  the  plans  of  Merodach-baladan,  and  of  the  con- 
ditions which  rendered  the  usurpation  of  Sargon  prac- 
ticable. It  was,  from  their  point  of  view,  a  great  thing 
that  the  terrible  smiting  rod,  the  dynasty  of  Tiglath- 
pilezer,  was  broken  or  about  to  be  broken. 

The  "messengers  of  a  nation"  spoken  of  in  our  little 
poem  may  or  may  not  have  been  from  Merodach-baladan. 
From  the  Assyrian  records,  as  well  as  from  the  Bible 
(2  Kings  20  :  12  ff),  we  know  that  he  had  the  messenger- 
sending  habit. 

In  the  year  when  Ahaz  died,  Judah  and  Philistia  dif- 
fered in  their  relations  to  Assyria.  Ahaz  had  become 
the  vassal  of  Assyria  by  voluntary  submission,  and  was 
under  certain  obligations  of  good  faith,  however  these 
may  have  been  ruptured  later;  while  the  Philistines  had 
been  subdued  in  war  by  Tiglath-pilezer  a  dozen  years 
before  the  death  of  Ahaz,  and  were  bitter  by  reason  of 
the  cruelties  of  the  conqueror.  Later  the  two  peoples 
made  common  cause  against  Assyria,  but  nothing  can  be 
more  natural  than  that  the  rejoicing  of  Philistia  over  the 
downfall  of  the  Tiglath-pilezer  dynasty  should  be  much 
more  pronounced  than  that  of  Judah. 


A  Few  Additional  Syiichronisvts        221 

In  these  and  many  like  instances  the  points  of  coin- 
cidence between  the  biblical  records  and  those  on  the 
monuments  are  exceedingly  minute  and 
Summary  exact.  In  Other  instances  the  coinci- 
dence is  more  general.  The  confirma- 
tions are  innumerable,  and  in  a  large  majority  of  the 
cases  are  undisputed.  When  contradictions  are  alleged 
they  commonly  vanish  on  careful  examination.  If,  how- 
ever, in  the  present  condition  of  the  records,  there  are 
some  genuine  contradictions,  that  need  not  trouble  us ; 
it  would  be  a  miracle  if  there  were  not.  As  long  as  the 
evidence  is  not  all  in,  the  parts  that  are  first  examined 
may  seem  to  be  in  conflict.  But  a  truly  critical  and  open- 
minded  person  will  avoid  such  interpretations  as  need- 
lessly render  any  part  of  the  evidence  adverse  to  the 
other  parts. 

See  the  references  to  the  literature  of  the  subject,  at 
the  close  of  Chapter  XIV. 


CHAPTER  XVII 

THE  LEGISLATION  OF   HAMMURABI  AND  THAT  OF  THE 
PENTATEUCH 

Introduction,  I.  General  view.  Questions  that  are  raised. 
Ancient  codes  are  formulations  of  usages.  Institutions 
brought  in  by  Abraham.  Cryptoagnostic  explanations.  Sinai 
and  the  Abrahamic  usages.  II.  Comparing  the  two  bodies 
of  legislation.  Description  of  the  Hammurabi  laws.  Non- 
significant resemblances.  Significant  resemblances  in  par- 
ticulars. Laws  concerning  slaves.  Concerning  the  sexes. 
Concerning  personal  violence.  Concerning  property.  Re- 
semblances and  difi^erences  in  characteristic  features,  i.  In 
their  character  as  literary  products.  Classifications,  etc. 
2.  In  the  subjects  legislated  upon.  Alike  in  dealing  with 
general  matters  of  human  conduct.  Pastoral  matters  more 
prominent  in  the  pentateuch,  urban  and  commercial  mat- 
ters in  Hammurabi.  Inferences  from  the  comparison.  3. 
In  the  matter  of  religious  sanction.  Claims  to  divine  origin. 
Imprecations  versus  threats.  4.  As  to  the  ethics  of  legisla- 
tion. Equality  and  fraternity.  Class  legislation.  ^  Humane 
legislation.  Penalties.  Safeguarding  public  justice.  The 
ten  commandments  and  the  law  of  love.     Literature. 

When  Hammurabi,  the  contemporary  of  Abraham, 
came  to  the  throne  of  Babylonia,  his  was  one  of 
several  small  kingdoms,  and  seems  to  have  been  feuda- 
tory to  an  Elamite  power.  During  his  long  reign  she 
absorbed  some  of  the  other  kingdoms,  including  Ur, 
whence  Abram  came,  and  became  suzerain  to  other  re- 
gions, including  the  eastern  coast  of  the  Mediterranean. 
Hammurabi  is  one  of  the  great  names  of  history.  He 
was  a  warrior,  a  constructer  of  public  works,  a  states- 
man ;  but  his  crowning  claim  to  distinction  is  based  on 
222 


The  Legislation  of  Haimnurabi         223 

the  great  code  of  laws  which  he  promulgated.  Of  this 
code  there  were  more  copies  than  one.  The  copy  which 
during  the  past  few  years  has  attracted  so  much  atten- 
tion was  discovered  in  Susa  in  A.  D.  1901.  It  is  in- 
scribed on  a  large  block  of  black  diorite.  Many  volumes 
and  articles  have  been  published  concerning  it. 

I.  Our  interest  in  Hammurabi  is  due  to  the  fact  that 
the  laws  promulgated  by  him  illuminate  for  us  the  moral, 
Ethical  and  social,  and  political  ideas  of  his  time ;  also 
Sociological  all  this  has  bearings  on  the  question  of 
Interest  the  divine  sanction  of  the  biblical  legisla- 

tion. Suppose  we  introduce  our  discussion  by  two  extracts 
from  a  letter  written  in  1907,  and  referring  to  the  Ham- 
murabi laws  and  to  Egyptian  documents  in  which  the 
dead  are  represented  as  claiming  merit  for  having  ab- 
stained from  certain  wrong  acts. 

*Tt  seemed  to  me  that  at  least  seven  of  the  ten  com- 
mandments were  in"  the  Hammurabi  code.  "Not  indeed 
in  the  words  of  Moses,  but  in  the  norm  are  they  to  be 
found  there.  .  .  .  The  Judgment  of  the  Dead  and 
the  Negative  Confession  wherein  six  of  the  ten  com- 
mandments are  given  in  substance.  Yet  this  writing  as 
well  as  the  Code  are  prior  to  the  age  of  Moses." 

Following  this  the  letter  refers  to  biblical  instances  be- 
fore Moses  in  which  a  recognition  of  some  of  the  pre- 
cepts of  the  decalogue  is  implied,  and  then  adds: 

"Now  did  not  Moses  know  before  he  went  up  into  the 
mount  all  the  ten  commandments?  Have  they  not  come 
to  the  Hebrew  lawgiver  from  sources  outside  of  his  own 
people  and  their  traditions?  Are  not  the  Code  Ham- 
murabi and  the  Negative  Confession  prior  documents? 


224  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

.  ,  .  Does  not  the  promulgation  from  Sinai  mean  that 
then  for  the  first  time  they  received  special  divine  sanc- 
tion, and  not  that  then  for  the  first  time  were  they  a 
revelation?  My  old  faith  is  sorely  wrenched  and  tried 
in  these  days." 

I  think  that  this  writer  is  not  alone  in  this  matter  of 
finding  that  his  faith  is  wrenched  and  tried  by  the  dis- 
covery of  moral  ideas  in  the  literature  of 

Current  Wrong    ^^^  ^^^.j^  centuries  and  centuries  before 

Ideas 

Moses.  But  in  such  cases  the  wrench- 
ing and  trying  of  faith  results  from  the  habit  of  misunder- 
standing what  the  Bible  and  the  older  traditions  teach 
concerning  the  giving  of  the  commandments  from  Sinai. 
Men  who  attack  the  old  tradition  sometimes  represent 
that  tradition  to  be  that  God  gave  the  ten  commandments 
as  a  miraculous  new  revelation,  no  one  having  previously 
known  of  any  of  them.  It  is  possible  that  some  persons 
have  unintelligently  had  this  idea  of  the  matter,  but  this 
is  not  the  idea  which  the  Scriptures  present,  not  that 
which  the  churches  hold.  The  promulgation  of  the  ten 
commandments  from  Sinai  implies  that  God  then  es- 
pecially called  attention  to  them,  and  laid  emphasis  upon 
them,  making  them  the  basis  of  his  covenant  with  Israel ; 
it  does  not  imply  that  they  were  previously  unknown  to 
men,  nor  even  "that  then  for  the  first  time  they  received 
special  divine  sanction." 

Few  persons  would  dispute  the  statement  that  among 
the  Babylonians,  Aramaeans,  Arabians,  and  other  early 
Oriental  peoples  there  existed  legal  usages,  in  effect  a 
body  of  common  law,  long  before  Moses  or  Hammurabi. 
The  legislation  of  Hammurabi  was  mainly  the  formula- 


The  Legislation  of  Hammurabi         225 

tion  of  such  of  these  usages  as  seemed  to  the  king's  pub- 
licists suited  to  the  purpose  in  hand.    In  the  processes  of 

formulation  some  of  the  usages  may  have 
Formulations       .  i-r-    j  i 

-  y  been   modified,    and   new   precepts   may 

have  been  added,  but  mainly  the  code 
was  a  defining  of  existing  usages.  The  legislation  of  the 
pentateuch  is  likewise  mainly  a  formulation  of  usages  al- 
ready in  existence,  with  such  modifications  and  additions 
as  were  deemed  desirable.  This  is  our  natural  under- 
standing of  the  matter  if  we  believe  that  Moses  formu- 
lated the  laws  by  divine  inspiration,  and  it  remains  the 
natural  understanding  on  any  other  theory.  To  say  this 
is  not  to  belittle  the  divine  element  or  the  miraculous  ele- 
ment in  what  occurred  at  Sinai;  it  is  simply  to  recognize 
the  testimony  of  the  Scriptures  concerning  the  pre- 
Sinaitic  history,  and  the  usual  m.ethods  in  which  God 
reveals  himself. 

The  Bible  represents  that  the  Babylonians  and  Hebrews 
were  ethnically  related,  and  we  should  therefore  expect 
Institutions       ^^^^  ^^^^Y  would  have  traditional  usages 
Brought  in        in  common.     We  are  not  surprised  to 
by  Abraham      find  that  some  of  the  Israelite  written 
laws  are  nearly  the  same  with  the  Babylonian.    Whether 
the  Israelitish  legislation  obtained  these  from  the  Ham- 
murabi code  or  formulated  them  for  itself  from  usage 
is  not  a  question  of  great  imiportance.    The  most  obvious 
explanation  is  that  Abraham  brought  them  with  him  from 
the  east.    The  biblical  account  is  that  the  Abrahamic  tribe 
came  from  the  regions  which  Hammurabi  very  soon  af- 
terward consolidated  into  a  strong  political  power,  that  it 
remained   for  a  time  in  Mesopotamia,  and  that  then  a 


2  26  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

branch  of  the  tribe  came  to  Palestine  with  Abraham.  If 
this  is  history  it  justifies  the  inference  that  most  of  the 
usages  which,  later,  were  common  to  Israel  and  to  ancient 
Babylonia,  came  with  Abraham  from  Babylonia.  This  is 
corroborated  by  the  instances,  that  of  Hagar  for  example, 
in  which  the  conduct  of  Abraham  and  his  family  is  pre- 
cisely that  required  by  certain  quite  peculiar  laws  of 
Hammurabi. 

All  this  strongly  supports  the  historical  reality  and  cor- 
rectness of  the  Bible  narrative,  and  it  is  therefore  unwel- 
come to  the  cryptoagnostic  criticism.     It 
The  Crypto-  ^        j^j  ,  ^  ^^  ^  ^^jj^^  ^^  ^j^^  zx\\:\z'=.  of  that  type 
agnostic  Opinion     ,     °  -^  ^ 

if  they  could  hold  that  these  parts  of  the 

pentateuch  were  added  during  the  Babylonian  exile ;  they 
are  precluded  from  this  because  they  had  already  assigned 
most  of  these  materials  to  J  and  E,  which  they  hold  to 
have  been  written  some  centuries  before  the  exile.  Their 
only  recourse  seems  to  be  to  say  that  these  laws  may  have 
been  imported  into  Israel  in  the  times  of  Assyrian  con- 
quest, and  through  the  medium  of  Assyria — an  explana- 
tion which  is  in  the  highest  degree  forced  and  improb- 
able. 

The  question  is  raised  whether,  in  times  more  remote, 
these  usages  were  not  indigenous  to  Palestine  or  Arabia, 
Sinai  and  migrating   thence   to   Babylonia.     How- 

Abrahamic        ever  this  may  be,  the  natural  understand- 
Usages  ing  of  the  record  is  to  the  effect  that  the 

Abrahamic  people  maintained  its  usages,  of  course  modi- 
fying them  from  generation  to  generation,  until  it  became 
the  Israel  that  left  Egypt;  and  that  then,  under  Moses, 
these  usages  were  formulated,  with  such  selection  and 


The  Legislation  of  Hammurabi         227 

changes  and  additions  as  God  directed  Moses  to  make, 
thus  becoming  the  legislation  of  the  pentateuch.  This  is 
a  simple  and  probable  account  of  the  matter,  and  it  should 
not  be  rejected  without  sufficient  reasons. 

II.  The  laws  of  Hammurabi  as  we  have  them  are  in 
282  sections,  some  of  these  being  double  sections.  From 
the  middle  35  sections  are  missing,  and  parts  of  other 
sections  are  mutilated.  There  are  a  prologue  and  an 
epilogue  in  the  name  of  Hammurabi,  each  long  and  boast- 
ful and  religious,  the  epilogue  containing  imprecations 
on  any  who  fail  to  honor  the  laws. 

Some  of  the  resemblances  between  the  laws  of  Ham- 
murabi and  those  of  the.  pentateuch  have  but  little  sig- 
nificance  for  determining  the  historical 

Non-Significant  i    .•  t,    .  ^i       ^  t-  i 

R     mbl  relations  between  the  two.    r  or  example, 

certain  regulations  concerning  cattle 
and  sheep  are  due  to  the  nature  of  the  subjects  treated 
rather  than  to  the  historical  relation  between  the  codes. 
Similar  usages  have  arisen  among  other  races  that  kept 
cattle  and  sheep.  It  is  of  no  great  account  that  Moses 
is  said  to  have  received  his  laws  from  Jehovah,  and  Ham- 
murabi his  from  the  Sun-god,  for  it  has  been  claimed  for 
other  legislators  that  they  received  their  laws  from  the 
gods.  The  two  codes  are  strongly  alike  in  that  each  pre- 
cept of  either  code  reads  like  a  decision  in  a  case  that  has 
been  actually  adjudicated.  Doubtless  decisions  of  this 
kind  were  remembered  and  recorded,  and  served  as  pre- 
cedents in  future  cases.  But  in  this  there  is  nothing 
distinctive. 

Our  task  of  comparison  is  made  simpler  by  the  fact 
that  Hammurabi's  laws  are  civil,  not  ceremonial.     They 


2  28  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

deal  with  religious  matters,  but  from  a  purely  civic  point 
of  view.  So  they  are  to  be  compared  only  with  penta- 
teuchal  legislation  of  the  same  kind. 

Historically  significant  resemblances  between  the  two 
meet  us  on  every  page.     For  example,  both  discriminate 
Laws  against  slaves.     In  Hammurabi  the  pen- 

Concerning       alty    for   maiming    a   gentleman    is    the 
Slaves  maiming  of  the  offender,  that  for  maim- 

ing a  freeman  is  a  fine,  that  for  maiming  a  slave  is  dam- 
ages to  the  amount  of  half  his  price  (196-199).  For 
causing  miscarriage  in  the  cases  of  women  of  the  three 
classes  the  penalties  are  respectively  ten  shekels,  five 
shekels,  two  shekels  (209-213).  Striking  a  man  is  pun- 
ished by  a  flogging  or  a  fine ;  but  if  a  man's  slave  strike 
the  man's  son  his  ear  is  cut  off  (202-205).  A  surgeon's 
fee  is  ten  shekels  for  a  gentleman,  five  for  a  freeman, 
two  for  a  slave  (215-217).  If  a  bull  gore  a  man  it  costs 
half  a  mana,  but  one-third  of  a  mana  if  the  man  be  a 
slave  (251-252).  Similar  discriminations  against  a  slave, 
though  with  very  different  details,  appear  in  Exodus  21  : 
20-21,  32. 

The  two  codes  alike  punish  with  death  the  stealing  of 
a  man  to  reduce  him  to  slavery  (14  cf.  Ex.  21  :  16; 
Deut.  24  :  7),  though  Hammurabi  perhaps  confines  this 
to  a  minor,  the  son  of  a  gentleman.  There  is  some  re- 
semblance between  the  provision  that  if  a  man  in  debt 
sell  his  wife  or  son  or  daughter  the  term  of  service  shall 
expire  in  three  years  (117)  and  the  pentateuchal  pro- 
vision that  the  term  of  a  Hebrew  slave  shall  expire  in  six 
years.  Hammurabi  prescribes  that  the  slave  who  denies 
his  master's  ownership  shall  be  punished  by  the  cutting 


The  Legislation  of  Hammurabi         229 

off  of  his  ear  (282).  Is  this  related  to  the  boring  of  a 
slave's  ear  (Ex.  21  :  6)  in  token  of  his  having  accepted 
perpetual   servitude  ? 

But  note  the  superiority  of  the  Mosaic  precepts  in 
point  of  justice  and  humaneness.  When  the  Hebrew 
slave  goes  out  at  the  end  of  six  years  the  master  must 
provide  liberally  for  him  (Deut.  15  :  12  ff;  Lev.  25  :  39 
ff;  Ex.  21  :  2  ff).  Hammurabi  provides  that  if  a  man 
sells  a  woman  servant  who  has  borne  him  children,  he 
may  redeem  her  by  paying  the  money  (117-119);  the 
pentateuchal  precept  is  that  a  slave  wife,  whether  Hebrew 
or  alien,  must  be  either  treated  as  a  wife  or  set  free  (Ex. 
21  :  7-1 1 ;  Deut.  21  :  11-14).  Hammurabi  has  no  paral- 
lel for  the  Mosaic  precept  which  frees  a  slave  who  has 
been  maimed  by  an  ill-tempered  master  (Ex.  21  :  26,  2^^. 
In  contrast  with  the  prohibition  (Deut.  23  :  15)  against 
returning  fugitive  slaves  to  their  masters,  Hammurabi 
requires  that  they  be  returned  (15-20),  in  some  cases 
under  penalty  of  death. 

In  laws  concerning  marriage,  divorce,  dowry,  inherit- 
ance,  concubinage,   slave  wives   and   their  children,   the 

code  of  Hammurabi  is  very  specific,  and 
Laws  Concerning     .  .      ,  i     •     i  i  t^    • 

^.     ^  m    some   particulars   admirable.      It   in- 

the  Sexes  ,     ,  ^         ^    ,  ,  .  ,      , 

eludes  many  of  the  provisions  which  the 

Israelitish  legislation  has  in  common  with  that  of  man- 
kind in  general.  It  gives  regulations  which  closely  fit  the 
case  of  Sarah  and  Abraham  and  Hagar  (144,  146,  147, 
170,  171  cf.  Gen.  16  and  21  :  8-21;  25  :  6).  It  lacks 
provision  for  writing  in  cases  of  divorce  (Deut.  24  : 
1-4).  It  agrees  with  the  pentateuch  in  punishing  forni- 
cation with  death  in  certain  cases  (129,  130),  but  cancels 


230  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

a  wife's  obligation  to  an  absent  husband  unless  she  has 
maintenance  from  him  (133-136).  Its  standard  of  mari- 
tal ethics  is  purely  utilitarian. 

The  extant  parts  of  the  Hammurabi  code  contain  no 
law  concerning  intentional  homicide  in  any  degree.     Its 

precepts  concerning  unintentional  homi- 
Injuries  to  •  ,  ,  ,    .      .  ,  . 

„  cide     or    lesser    mjuries    have     certam 

Persons  .....  . 

similarities  with  those  in  the  pentateuch. 

For  example,  the  cases  of  a  bull  goring  a  man  or  a  slave, 
with  or  without  fault  on  the  owner's  part,  are  presented 
essentially  as  in  Exodus  (250-252  cf.  Ex.  21  :  28-32), 
though  the  penalties  are  different.  Striking  a  woman  so 
as  to  cause  miscarriage  is  treated  of  in  six  topics  (209- 
214  cf.  Ex.  21  :  22),  the  penalties  not  being  the  same  as 
in  Exodus.  As  in  Exodus,  a  penalty  may  include  the 
payment  of  a  physician's  bill  (206  cf.  Ex.  21  :   19). 

The  two  legislations  have  in  common  many  principles 
and  precepts  concerning  rights  of  property,  with  differ- 
ences  as   marked   as   the    resemblances. 
Laws  Concerning  .      .  ,  .  . 

p  Injuries  resultmg  from  carelessness  are 

represented  in  Exodus  by  the  leaving 
loose  a  goring  bull,  the  leaving  of  a  pit  open,  the  kindling 
of  a  fire  that  does  damage  (21  :  33-36,  22  :  6)  ;  in  Ham- 
murabi by  carelessness  with  one's  canal  dykes  (53-56)  ; 
in  both  by  domestic  animals  in  another  man's  field  (57- 
58  cf.  Ex.  22  :  5).  So  with  matters  of  theft  and  robbery, 
the  hiring  of  labor  or  animals  or  implements,  loans  and 
interest,  goods  committed  to  the  care  of  any  one,  agency, 
the  care  of  animals  or  other  property,  the  claiming  of 
something  as  lost,  business  transactions  in  large  variety 
(9-13,  100-126,  253-277;  Ex.  22  and  parallel  places). 


The  Legislation  of  Haviniitrabi  231 

The  truest  comparison,  however,  of  these  two  bodies 
of  legislation  is  not  that  based  on  detailed  resemblances 
and  differences,  but  that  of  certain  broad  characteristic 
features. 

1.  Compare  them  in  the  form  of  their  presentation.  As 
literary  products  the  Hammurabi  laws  are  crude  by  the 

side  of  the  Mosaic  laws.  Professor 
I  erences  o  Lyon  has  shown  (Jour,  of  Am.  Or.  Soc. 
XXV,  pp.  248-278)  that  the  Hammurabi 
code  has  an  elaborate  classification ;  but  it  is  so  blind  that 
most  scholars  have  failed  to  recognize  it,  and  is  so  be- 
cause it  is  based  on  very  crude  ideas  of  sociology  and 
jurisprudence.  In  contrast  with  this,  the  two  penta- 
teuchal  codes  (Ex.  21-23  and  Deut.  12-26)  have  implied 
classifications  less  elaborate  and  complete,  but  so  much 
riper  that  the  English  common  law,  for  example,  is  built 
on  the  same  lines.  The  biblical  legislation  is  much  nar- 
rower in  its  range  than  the  other,  but  it  comes  far  nearer 
to  being  typical  and  fit  for  universal  use. 

A  considerable  part  of  the  Hammurabi  document  is 
the  wordy  prologue  and  epilogue  in  praise  of  the  human 
lawgiver ;  there  is  nothing  of  this  in  the  pentateuch.  In 
its  place  there  is  a  good  deal  of  narrative  and  homiletical 
matter.  Accompanying  many  of  the  laws  in  the  Bible 
we  find  statements  as  to  the  ethical  or  the  humane  pur- 
pose of  the  law;  such  statements  are  lacking  in  Ham- 
murabi. 

2.  The  study  of  the  subjects  legislated  upon  respect- 
ively by  Hammurabi  anid  in  the  pentateuch  should  yield 
sharper  results  than  some  have  made  it  yield. 

Certain  matters  of  conduct  which  do  not  depend  es- 


232  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticis?7i 

sentially  on  environment  are  perhaps  equally  prominent 
in  the  two — crimes  of  violence,  crimes  against  property 
Matters  of        ^^^  general,   crimes  growing  out   of   the 
Universal  relations  of  the  sexes,  regulations  con- 

Conduct  cerning  marriage,  concubinage,  divorce, 

and  the  like.  Of  these  kinds  are  the  larger  part  of  the 
instances  in  which  the  two  codes  have  the  same  or  sim- 
ilar provisions. 

The  two  have  some  precepts  in  common  in  regard  to 
sheepkeeping  and  cattlekeeping,  but  here  the  Israelitish 
laws   are  much  more   full   and   specific. 
^dC't    L"£       ^^^  contrary  is  emphatically  the  case  in 
regard  to  laws  for  city  life  and  for  per- 
manent agricultural  and  commercial  pursuits.     This  dif- 
ference is  particularly  significant,  by  reason  of  its  impli- 
cations concerning  the  civilizations   for  which  the  two 
codes  were  respectively  designed. 

One  of  the  few  rather  plausible  arguments  by  which 
the  cryptoagnostic  criticism  attempts  to  prove  the  late 
date  of  the  pentateuchal  legislation  is  based  on  the  fact 
that  that  legislation  contains  some  provisions  for  a  per- 
manent agricultural  condition  and  for  city  life.  For 
example,  it  uses  the  urban  phrase  'Svithin  thy  gates." 
It  provides  for  protecting  a  houseroof  by  a  battlement 
(Deut.  22  :  8).  It  assigns  various  duties  to  the  "elders" 
of  cities.  It  requires  the  setting  apart  of  cities  for  the 
Levites  and  of  cities  of  refuge.  It  includes  laws  for  real 
estate  in  country  and  city,  and  for  buying  and  selling  and 
loans  and  interest.  If  you  make  the  false  but  not  unheard- 
of  assumption  that  the  Israelites  under  Moses  were  mere 
nomads,  and  had  no  ideas  of  life  beyond  that,  you  can 


The  Legislation  of  Hammtirabi  233 

very  plausibly  draw  the  inference  that  these  laws  must 
have  come  in  at  a  later  date. 

In  fact,  the  pentateuchal  laws  purport  to  have  been 
given  during  the  forty  years  in  the  wilderness,  to  people 
who  were  then  living  in  tents,  as  their  remote  ancestors 
had  done,  but  who  combined  some  practice  of  agricul- 
ture {e.  g.  Gen.  26  :  12)  with  their  keeping  of  cattle 
and  sheep ;  to  a  people  which  had  recently  for  some  gen- 
erations known  city  and  agricultural  life  in  Egypt,  and 
which  expected  soon  to  resume  that  type  of  life  in 
Canaan.  The  legislation  is  universal  in  principle,  but 
its  details  are  exclusively  those  which  belong  to  simple 
conditions.  Its  laws  for  cities  and  for  real  estate  are 
few,  and  are  mostly  either  connected  with  the  national 
religion  or  deal  with  matters  of  humane  precaution  or  of 
crime  {e.  g.  Lev.  19  :  9,  10;  Deut.  22  :  8,  23,  24).  Its 
laws  concerning  finance  are  almost  exclusively  in  the 
interest  of  humaneness  to  debtors. 

In  contrast  with  this  the  Hammurabi  legislation  has 
scores  and  scores  of  precepts  concerning  city  life  and 
permanent  agriculture  and  settled  usages  of  commerce — 
laws  which  imply  a  civilization  that  has  become  com- 
plicated. It  regulates  methods  of  business,  the  matter 
of  vv^itnesses  and  of  written  instruments  in  contracts,  the 
responsibility  of  agents  in  buying  and  selling  and  collect- 
ing, the  obligations  of  contractors  in  building  houses  or 
boats,  the  conditions  for  hiring  boats  or  other  means  of 
transportation,  and  the  liability  for  losses,  the  transfer- 
ring or  leasing  or  mortgaging  of  lands  or  houses,  the 
rights  and  duties  of  landlords  and  tenants,  the  risks  from 
storms  or  bad  seasons  or  unskillful  cultivation,  the  mat- 


234  Reaso?iable  Bib  deal  Criticism 

ter  of  dykes  and  irrigation,  the  obligations  and  risks  of 
warehousemen  and  pubHc  carriers,  the  conditions  for 
loans  and  interest,  the  fees  of  surgeons  and  veterinaries, 
wineshops  and  the  women  who  keep  them  and  the  men 
who  loaf  there.  It  protects  men  in  the  public  service, 
declares  what  shall  be  done  with  their  houses  and  gar- 
dens and  families  in  their  absence,  forbids  their  hiring 
substitutes.  Under  Hammurabi,  king  of  kings,  life  in  the 
great  cities  of  the  empire  was  different  from  that  to  which 
the  rural  tribes  under  Moses  looked  forward.  The 
Babylonian  civilization  was  perhaps  less  truly  cultured 
than  the  Israelitish,  but  it  was  more  splendid  and  luxuri- 
ous and  intricate. 

In  fine,  the  Hammurabi  laws  indicate  with  great  dis- 
tinctness  what  the   pentateuchal   laws   would   inevitably 
have  been  if  they  had  been  formulated 

^     ,     .  _»  after   the    Israelites    became   permanent 

Contrast  Proves  ...  , 

dwellers    in    cities    in    a    thickly    settled 

agricultural  country;  and  they  thus  strongly  confirm  the 
record  in  its  testimony  to  the  effect  that  the  pentateuchal 
legislation  was  framed  in  the  time  of  Moses,  and  not  in 
the  later  times  assigned  by  some  of  the  critical  theories. 

3.  In  the  matter  of  religious  sanction  the  unlikeness  of 
the  two  legislations  is  much  more  marked  than  their 
similarity. 

Some  stress  has  been  laid  on  the  fact  that  both  claim 
to  have  been  received  from  Deity.  But  it  is  to  Ham- 
murabi that  Shamash  gives  the  laws,  not  to  his  subjects. 
Obedience  to  the  laws  is  no  part  of  the  religion  of  his 
subjects.  The  king  expects  that  men  will  stand  before  his 
monument  and  read,  and  be  grateful  not  to  Shamash,  but 


The  Legislation  of  Hammurabi  235 

to  Hammurabi.     He  hopes  they  will  say:     ''Hammurabi 

indeed  is  a  ruler  who  is  like  a  real  father  to  his  people." 

It  is  a  noble  ambition,  and  we  in  this 

_..  .     ^  ._,.        distant  age  and  land  accord  to  him  the 
Divme  Origin  ° 

homage  he  desired.  But  his  attitude  is 
very  unlike  that  of  Moses,  who  obliterates  himself  that 
the  message  he  gives  may  come  directly  from  Deity  to 
the  people.  In  Babylonia,  as  in  Israel,  there  were  doubt- 
less elaborate  religious  laws.  The  significant  difiference 
is  that  in  the  Babylonian  civil  laws  there  is  no  dominant 
religious  motif ;  while  the  great  thing  in  the  religion  of 
Israel  is  the  obeying  from  the  heart  the  laws  of  conduct 
given  through  Moses,  and  the  teaching  of  these  in  the 
religious  bringing  up  of  the  children. 

Some  have  found  a  point  of  contact  between  the  two 
legislations  in  the  imprecations  appended  to  the  Ham- 
Imprecations      murabi    code,    as    compared    with    the 
versus  threatening    chapters    of    Deuteronomy 

Moral  Threats  and  Leviticus  (Deut.  27-31;  Lev.  26), 
but  the  resemblances  are  very  superficial.  An  impreca- 
tion is  a  different  thing  from  a  threat  of  punishment. 
The  threatenings  in  question  are  against  a  people  in  its 
collective  capacity,  while  the  Hammurabi  imprecations 
are   individual. 

4.  When  we  look  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  ethics 
of  legislation  we  still  find  resemblances  between  the 
Babylonian  code  and  the  Israelitish,  but  the  latter  has 
higher  levels  which  are  not  in  the  same  class  with  any- 
thing in  Hammurabi. 

We  have  already  noted  that  the  biblical  laws  are  often 
accompanied   by    explanations    as   to   the   moral   or   the 


236  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

humane  purpose  of  the  law,  and  that  the  religious  sanc- 
tions presented  are  in  the  form  of  exhortation  and  warn- 
ing, and  not  in  that  of  calling  down  curses  on  the  offender. 
Similar  differences  appear  at  every  point  in  the  com- 
parison. 

The  Israelitish  legislation  is  based  on  two  ideas:  that 

of  equal  justice  to  all  persons  of  all  sorts,  rich  or  poor, 

home-born  or  foreign   {e.  g.  Lev.   19  :  33,  34  and  24  : 

Y^^  22  and  25  :  35,  47  cf.  22  :  18;  Ex.  12  : 

Fundamental     .49;  Num.  9  :  14  and  15  :  15,  16),  and 

Ideas  that  of  fraternal  kindness,  especially  to 

Israelites   and   to  the   needy    (Deut.    15  :  1-3;   23  :  20; 

Lev.  25  :  44-46;  19  :  10;  23  :  22).    In  dozens  of  places, 

with  unswerving  emphasis,  it  insists  on  the   former  of 

these  two  ideas ;  it  discriminates  in  favor  of  Israelites 

only  in   cases   where  the   second   of   the   two   ideas  has 

place.     The  two  ideas  are  clearly  those  expressed  in  the 

words  equality  and  fraternity.     In  the  Hammurabi  code 

these  two  features  are  only  incidental,  not  dominant. 

The  Hammurabi  laws  are  decidedly  class  legislation. 
They  recognize  three  grades  in  society,  the  wealthy  or 
otherwise   influential   upper  classes,   the 
Class  Legislation   common    free    people,    and    the    slaves. 
There  is  no  provision  for  protecting  the 
weaker  against  the  stronger.      There  are  repeated  dis- 
criminations in  favor  of  the  more  fortunate  classes  as 
against  the  less  fortunate.     The  thief  who  has  property 
may  escape  by  paying;  the  thief  who  has  none  is  put  to 
death.    The  rank  of  the  person  against  whom  an  offense 
has  been  committed  is  the  one  aggravating  circumstance ; 
a  thief  must  restore  tenfold  to  a  common  person,  but 


The  Legislation  of  Hammurabi  237 

thirtyfold  to  a  temple  or  to  the  court  (8  cf.  265,  112). 
From  the  penalty  of  drowning  for  adultery  a  husband 
may  save  his  wife,  or  the  king  may  save  his  servant 
(129).  It  was  a  safe  crime  when  committed  by  a  royal 
favorite. 

The  humane  features  of  the  pentateuchal  legislation 
have  already  been  touched  upon,  and  these  are  not 
paralleled  in  Hammurabi.  In  some  of 
_     ,. .  these,  for  example  in  the  case  of  slavery 

or  of  interest  on  loans,  the  laws  discrimi- 
nate in  favor  of  an  Israelite  as  compared  with  a  foreigner, 
and  the  person  who  studies  the  discriminations  most 
carefully  will  not  be  the  readiest  in  finding  fault  with 
them.  But  the  sojourner  is  a  sharer  in  some  of  them 
{e.  g.  Lev.  23  :  22).  The  Mosaic  provisions  for  kindly 
treatment  to  the  poor,  to  widows  and  the  fatherless,  to 
strangers,  to  persons  who  are  peculiarly  situated,  are 
too  well  known  to  need  citation.  In  some  cases  these 
provisions  approximate  a  sentimental  character,  for  ex- 
ample the  exempting  of  a  newly  married  man  from  mili- 
tary service  (Deut.  20  :  7). 

The  one  biblical  provision  as  to  the  specific  relations 
between  capital  and  labor  is  to  the  effect  that  wages  shall 
be  promptly  paid  (Lev.  19  :  13;  Deut.  24  :  15).  The 
Hammurabi  code  lacks  this  provision,  though  it  has  a  long 
list  of  regulations  concerning  employers  and  wage- 
workers. 

Among  the  many  humane  provisions  in  the  pentateu- 
chal laws,  the  sabbath  Is  conspicuous  and  unique. 

The  two  legislations  can  be  very  concretely  compared 
through  the  penalties  they  prescribe.      Some  particular 


238  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

punishments  are  the  same  in  both,  and  some  principles 
of  punishment  are  the  same ;  and  these  serve  to  empha- 
size the  accompanying  differences.     In- 
Penalties         stances  have  already  been  given,  but  a 
few   others   must  be   added. 
Both   legislations   use   the   death   penalty  more   freely 
than  do  our  modern  codes.    Leaving  out  purely  religious 
offenses,    inasmuch    as   the   Hammurabi 

P^nishm  nt  ^°^^  ^°^^  ^^^  consider  these,  the  penta- 
teuchal  laws  prescribe  death  for  perhaps 
half  a  dozen  offenses,  including  murder ;  the  Hammurabi 
laws,  as  we  have  them,  do  not  mention  murder,  but  pre- 
scribe death  for  about  forty  offenses.  These  include  theft 
in  a  dozen  forms,  aiding  the  escape  of  a  slave,  deceiving 
a  slave-brander,  the  hiring  of  a  substitute  by  a  person 
employed  by  the  king,  and  so  forth.  In  some  cases  the 
mode  of  death  is  specified — by  burning  or  by  impalement 
or  by  drowning  (no,  157,  153). 

In  the  Bible  there  is  no  provision  for  the  death  penalty 
except  on  reasonable  proof.  In  Hammurabi  a  man 
accused  of  sorcery  must,  if  the  proof  be  insufficient, 
throw  himself  into  the  river.  If  he  drowns,  his  accuser 
takes  his  estate ;  if  not,  he  receives  the  estate  of  the 
accuser,  who  is  put  to  death  (2).  A  woman  under  sus- 
picion must  throw  herself  into  the  river  (132).  Throw- 
ing into  the  water  or  binding  and  throwing  into  the  water 
are   favorite  methods  of  disposing  of  cases    (108,   133, 

143,  155). 

In  the  Bible  the  usual  penalty  for  theft  or  other 
offenses  against  property  is  to  restore  twofold  {e.  g.  Ex. 
22  :  4,  7,  9),  or  to  restore  the  principal  with  one-fifth 


The  Legislation  of  Hammurabi  239 

added  (Lev.  5  :  16  and  6  :  2-y  \  Num.  5:7),  plus  a  fine 
in  the  shape  of  a  guiU-offering.     The  more  enterprising 

and  successful  the  thief  the  heavier  the 
f     Th  ft  penalty.    If  he  gets  away  with  his  booty 

and  disposes  of  it  he  pays  four  sheep 
for  one,  and  five  oxen  for  one  (Ex.  22  :  i).  To  punish 
theft  by  death  is  prohibited  except  in  resisting  a  night 
attack  (Ex.  22  :  2-3).  If  the  thief  cannot  pay  he  is  to 
be  sold.  The  Hammurabi  law  punishes  offenses  against 
property  by  compulsory  restitution,  twofold,  threefold, 
fivefold,  sixfold,  tenfold,  thirtyfold ;  but  it  also  in 
many  cases  punishes  them  by  death  (e.  g.  6.  7,  9,  10,  11), 
and  in  other  cases  by  death  in  default  of  a  penal  payment. 
The  Hammurabi  laws  throw  light  on  the  maxim  "eye 
for  eye,  tooth   for  tooth"    (Ex.  21  :  24  and  parallels). 

The  pentateuch  gives  no  cases  in  detail 
LexTalionis       under   this   generalization,   though   in   a 

single  exceptional  case  it  provides  for 
punishment  by  maiming  (Deut.  25  :  12).  Nowhere  in 
the  Bible  are  there  any  instances  of  actual  Israelitish 
judicial  punishment  by  maiming,  though  there  are  some 
non-Israelitish  or  non-judicial  instances  (Jud.  i  :  6-7 
and  16  :  21 ;  i  Sam.  11  :  2 ;  2  Kings  25  :  7).  In  contrast 
with  this  the  Hammurabi  laws  have  a  long  list  of  horrible 
specific  penalties  by  maiming — cutting  out  a  tongue,  de- 
stroying an  eye,  breaking  a  bone,  cutting  off  an  ear  or 
fingers  or  a  woman's  breast  (e.  g.  192-200,  205,  218,  226). 
The  absence  of  such  details  in  the  pentateuch  is  signifi- 
cant. Is  the  maxim  as  there  given  a  command  to  be 
executed  ?  or  is  it  rather  just  a  strong  way  of  saying  that 
the  penalty  must  be  suited  to  the  offense? 


240  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

The  Mosaic  laws  are  emphatic  in  providing  that  penal- 
ties  shall   not   extend   to   the   relatives   of   the   criminal 
Punishing  a       (^eut.   24:   16).     Observe   in   contrast 
Criminal's         the  Hammurabi  provisions  for  putting  to 
Relatives  death   the   son   of   a   creditor   who   has 

caused  the  death  of  another  man's  son,  or  the  son  of  a 
builder  whose  work  has  collapsed,  causing  the  death  of 
another  man's  son,  or  the  daughter  of  a  man  who  has 
caused  the  death  of  another  man's  daughter  (116,  230, 
210). 

In   many   cases   the   Hammurabi   code   recognizes   the 

principle   of   commutation   of   penalty.      In   the   case  of 

brigandage  the  locality  is  liable  for  the 

ommu  a  so        damage  to  property,  and,  at  the  rate  of 

a  mana   of   silver,   for  each   life  taken. 

For  the  conditions  then   existing  these  provisions  may 

perhaps  have  been  laudable.     Less   so  are   some  other 

forms  of  commutation.    As  we  have  seen,  the  rich  could 

substitute  a  money  payment  for  the  death  which  the  law 

adjudged  to  them   for  their  crimes.     The  pentateuchal 

laws    are    set   against   the    commuting   of    penalties    for 

money.     In  a  case  of  homicide  the  elders  of  the  nearest 

city  may  purge  themselves  by  sacrifice,  but  immunity  for 

the  slayer  may  not  be  bought  (Num.  35  :  31,  32;  Deut. 

21  :  1-9). 

Safeguarding  The  safeguarding  of  judicial  proceed- 

Judicial  ings  is  not  so  conspicuous  in  the  Ham- 

Proceedings  murabi  laws  as  in  the  Mosaic.  The 
two  have  similar  provisions  for  guarding  against  false 
accusations  or  false  testimony  or  the  bribing  of  witnesses 
{c.  g.  1-4,  13,  127  cf.  Deut.  19  :  16-19).     Both  prescribe 


The  Legislation  of  Hammurabi         241 

that  a  false  accuser  or  false  witness  shall  suffer  the  penalty 
which  he  sought  to  bring  upon  the  accused.  The  penta- 
teuchal  laws  provide  with  more  care  than  the  other  for 
the  ascertaining  of  the  truth  in  such  cases. 

In  addition  to  this  the  pentateuchal  laws  are  even  more 
emphatic  against  malfeasance  by  a  judge  or  magistrate 
or  other  public  officer,  "Ye  shall  not  respect  persons  in 
judgment ;  ye  shall  hear  the  small  and  the  great  alike" 
(Deut.  I  :  17).  Bribe-taking,  wresting  of  judgment,  par- 
tiality to  a  litigant,  are  prohibited  with  almost  endless 
reiteration  {e.  g.  Ex.  2^^  :  2-9;  Lev.  19  :  15;  Deut.  16  : 
19  and  27  :  19).  In  these  and  other  passages  the  rights 
of  the  transient  resident  and  of  the  widow  and  the  father- 
less are  especially  insisted  upon  (Ex.  22  :  21-24;  Deut. 
10  :  17-19  and  24  :  17).  Further,  these  laws  guard  jus- 
tice by  a  certain  limited  privilege  of  appeal.  "The  cause 
that  is  too  hard  for  you  ye  shall  bring  unto  me"  (Deut.  i  : 
17  cf.  17  :  8  ff).  And  throughout  the  Old  Testament  the 
responsibility  of  the  men  who  administer  justice  is  the 
one  note  that  is  endlessly  repeated. 

All  this  is  conspicuously  absent  from  Hammurabi. 
The  one  provision  in  this  line  is  that  the  judge  who  shall 
"deliver  a  verdict  duly  signed  and  sealed  and  afterward 
alter  his  judgment"  is  to  be  fined  twelve  times  the  amount 
of  the  penalty  in  the  case,  and  is  to  be  permanently  de- 
posed (5).  Indirectly  this  provision  may  be  aimed  at 
judicial  carelessness  or  corruption,  but  strictly  the  of- 
fense defined  is  mere  confession  of  fallibility. 

The  pentateuch  is  characterized  by  its  two  summaries 
of  human  duty — the  ten  commandments  (Ex.  20:  Deut. 
5),  and  the  law  of  love  (Deut.  6:5:  Lev.  19  :   18,  34). 


242  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

You  may  say  that  the  decalogue  is  not  a  complete  record 
of  human  obligations ;  but  it  is  intelligible  and  typical  and 
The  Two  practically  sufficient,  and  has  come  to  be 

Summaries  SO   accepted   by   mankind ;    and    no   one 

for  Conduct  doubts  the  all-comprehensiveness  of 
the  law  of  love.  Some  of  the  contents  of  the  separate 
precepts  of  these  two  summaries  may  be  found  in  Ham- 
murabi and  in  other  pre-Mosaic  works,  for  example,  the 
Egyptian  Book  of  the  Dead.  One  who  is  already  familiar 
with  the  Mosaic  summaries  might  by  taking  pains  gather 
from  these  more  ancient  writings  instances  which  he 
could  put  together  into  something  very  like  the  sum- 
maries themselves.  But  the  fact  that  one  can  do  this 
renders  more  significant  the  fact  that,  so  far  as  the  records 
show,  no  one  then  had  any  idea  of  doing  it.  The  mean- 
ing of  the  decalogue  consists  not  more  in  its  separate 
precepts  than  in  their  being  combined  into  a  single  con- 
spectus. The  pentateuchal  summaries  mark  a  new  era 
in  human  thought.  And  even  if  some  one  should  dis- 
cover in  the  earlier  literatures  a  similar  conspectus,  it 
will  still  remain  true  that  the  conspectus  given  by  Moses 
is  the  only  one  that  has  had  the  vitality  to  persist  and  be- 
come universally  known;  and  further,  that  the  religion 
defined  by  Moses  is  the  only  known  ancient  religion  which 
had  this  conspectus  of  conduct  as  its  heart. 

In  fine,  the  Hammurabi  laws  betray  no  trace  that  there 
was  in  the  consciousness  of  the  lawgiver  any  such  gen- 
eralization of  human  rights  and  duties  as  that  presented 
in  the  ten  commandments,  or  any  conception  of  human 
conduct  as  dominated  by  supreme  love  to  God  and  equal 
love  to  man.     Of  the  two  legislations  the  one  claims  to 


The  Legislation  of  Hammurabi         243 

be  the  work  of  a  great  ruler,  and  justifies  its  claim.  The 
other  equally  justifies  its  claim  to  an  origin  that  is 
uniquely  divine. 

See  the  notes  on  the  literature  at  the  close  of  Chapters 
IX  and  XIV.     Many  different  volumes  and  articles  have 
been  published  on  Hammurabi.     There 
Literature        is   a   full   illustrated   treatment   in    Pro- 
fessor A.  T.  Clay's  volume  "Light  on  the 
Old   Testament    from    Babel."      The   references    in   this 
chapter  are  to  "The  Code  of  Hammurabi,"  by  Professor 
R.  F.  Harper,  of  the  University  of  Chicago.     A  good 
treatment  may  be  found  in  Gressmann. 


CHAPTER  XVIII 


ARAMAIC   PAPYRI    FROM    EGYPT 

Introductory :  The  papyri  from  Syene  and  Elephantine.  Con- 
tents of  the  Elephantine  papyri.  The  Jewish  worship  there. 
Points  of  contact  with  the  Bible.  I.  Argument  from  the 
papyri  in  support  of  the  cryptoagnostic  criticism.  Discredit- 
ing Jeremiah.  Discrediting  the  Deuteronomic  laws.  II. 
Argument  from  the  papyri  against  such  criticism,  i.  View 
of  the  older  tradition.  Concerning  Ezra  and  the  men  of 
the  Great  Synagogue.  The  traditions  respectable  in  spite 
of  mechanical  interpretations.  Witness  of  the  books  of  Ezra 
and  Nehemiah.  Josephus  agreeing  with.  Nehemiah.  The 
Old  Testament  aggregate  about  B.  C.  400.  Josephus  con- 
cerning Bagoses.  Josephus  in  conflict  with  Nehemiah.  2. 
The  opposing  critical  view.  The  issue  square  and  compre- 
hensive. 3.  How  the  pap3^ri  come  into  the  case.  Dates  of 
Johanan  and  Jaddua  and  Bagoses.  The  Aramaic  of  the 
papyri  and  that  of  Ezra  and  Daniel.  Conclusion :  Net  re- 
sults that  affect  the  whole  range  of  Bible  criticism.  Litera- 
ture. 

A  particular  group  of  discoveries,  made  in  the  first 
decade  of  the  twentieth  century,  is  of  exceptional  im- 
portance for  settling  questions  in  Bible 
These  Papyri  ...  f-.  ,  . 

D      'b  d  criticism.    Syene  m  Egypt,  now  Assuan, 

is  located  on  the  bank  of  the  Nile,  not 
far  from  the  island  Elephantine  in  the  Nile.  Both  Ele- 
phantine and  Syene  w^ere  once  important  centers  of  busi- 
ness and  of  culture.  Among  the  discoveries  recently 
made  on  these  sites  are  original  autograph  writings  in 
Aramaic,  on  papyrus  and  on  earthen  ware.  Some  of  these 
writings  are  on  matters  of  business  and  domestic  affairs, 
244 


Aramaic  Papyri  from  Egypt  245 

and  some  are  on  public  matters.  They  are  written  by 
Jews,  or  to  or  for  Jews.  They  contain  many  dates, 
ranging  from  B.  C.  471,  in  the  reign  of  Xerxes  of  Persia, 
to  the  17th  year  of  Darius  Nothus,  B.  C.  407.  They  indi- 
cate that  there  was  a  large  and  influential  Jewish  popula- 
tion at  those  dates  in  that  part  of  Eg}^pt.  A  particularly 
interesting  group  of  these  documents,  from  Assuan,  was 
edited  by  Sayce  and  Cowley  in  1906,  some  of  them  having 
been  published  earHer.  Another  interesting  group,  from 
Elephantine,  was  published  by  Sachau,  of  the  Prussian 
Academy  of  Sciences,  in  1907.  These  publications  are 
accepted  as  authentic  by  scholars  everywhere,  and  they 
have  been  republished  and  noticed  and  commented  upon 
in  numberless  periodicals  and  papers. 

The    Berlin    publication    contains,    first,    a    complete 
papyrus,  the  letter  of  one  Jedoniah  and  his  associates  to 
Bagohi    (Bagoas   or   Bagoses),    Persian 
^  ®^  ,  governor  of  Judah ;  second,  a  fragmen- 

tary duplicate  or  variant  of  the  same; 
third,  a  brief  memorandum  of  an  order  given  in  the  way 
of  a  favorable  response  to  the  letter. 

The  letter  sets  forth  that  Jedoniah  and  his  associates 
represent  the  interests  of  a  certain  Jewish  temple  for 
the  worship  of  Yahu  (Jehovah)  In  Elephantine.  "Al- 
ready in  the  days  of  the  kings  of  Egypt  had  our  fathers 
built  this  temple."  "When  Cambyses  entered  Egypt  he 
found  this  temple  built;  and  though  the  temples  of  the 
gods  of  Egypt  were  then  all  overthrown,  no  one  injured 
anything  In  this  temple."  But  "In  the  month  Tammuz, 
In  the  14th  year  of  King  Darius,"  certain  Egyptian 
priests,  taking  advantage  of  the  absence  of  Arsam,  the 


246  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticis77i 

Persian  satrap,  had  procured  from  certain  officials  the 
plunder  and  destruction  of  the  temple.  The  letter  says 
that  the  men  who  wrought  the  destruction  have  been  con- 
dignly  punished.  Its  writers  now  ask  leave  from  Bagohi, 
''the  20th  of  Marchesvan  in  the  17th  year  of  Darius,"  to 
rebuild  the  temple.  Mentioning  the  date  of  its  destruc- 
tion, they  say  that  "neither  from  that  day  to  this  .  .  . 
have  meal-offerings,  frankincense,  or  burnt-offerings  been 
offered  in  this  temple."  They  say:  *'Arsam  also  has  no 
knowledge  of  all  this  that  has  been  done  to  us."  Perhaps 
this  means  that  Arsam  refuses  to  take  official  cognizance 
of  the  matter;  if  Bagohi  is  willing  to  interfere  there  will 
be  no  conflict  of  jurisdiction.  Or  possibly  what  they  de- 
sire is  that  Bagohi  will  use  his  influence  with  Arsam. 

As  an  inducement  they  promise  that  they  "will  offer 
meal-offering  and  frankincense  and  burnt-offering"  in 
behalf  of  Bagohi ;  and  they  also  mention  gold,  and  a  pecu- 
niary interest  in  the  sacrifices  that  shall  be  made  on  the 
altar,  "in  the  value  equivalent  to  a  sum  of  1,000  talents." 

In  connection  with  the  request  they  mention  certain  per- 
sonages whom  the  Bible  also  mentions.  Early  in  the 
letter,  in  stating  their  case,  they  say  that 

^,     ,  .  ,   ..  "before  this,  when  this  evil  was  done," 

the  Jeb  Letter  t-.         .  .  1    ^^  t  1     1 

they  wrote  to  Bagohi  and     Jehohanan 

the  high  priest,  and  his  companions  the  priests  in  Jeru- 
salem, and  to  Ostan  his  brother,  who  is  Anani,  and  the 
nobles  of  the  Jews,  but  they  sent  us  no  answer."  Near 
the  close  of  the  letter  they  say:  "We  have  also  sent  the 
matter  in  a  letter  in  our  name  to  Delaiah  and  Shelemiah, 
the  sons  of  Sanballat  the  governor  of  Samaria." 

Concerning  the  answer  to  this  letter  Mr.  Stanley  A. 


Aramaic  Papyri  from  Egypt  247 

Cook  says  {^Expositor,  Dec.  1907,  p.  502),  that  *'the  third 
of  Professor  Sachau's  papyri,  a  small  but  apparently 
complete  text  which  is  undated,  ...  is  styled  a  rec- 
ord or  memorandum."  He  says  that  the  writer  is  in- 
structed by  Bagohi  and  Delaiah  to  tell  Arsham  in  Egypt 
that  the  ''altar-house  of  the  God  of  the  heavens  that  was 
built  in  the  fortress  Jeb  from  aforetime,  before 
Cambyses,"  was  to  be  rebuilt  ''in  its  place"  (cf.  Ezra 
6  :  7)  as  it  w^as  formerly,  and  that  meal  and  incense 
ofFerings  should  be  offered  "upon  this  altar  according  as 
was  done  in  former  times." 

"The  fortress  Jeb"  is  Elephantine.  The  Sanballat  men- 
tioned in  the  letter  is  the  one  who  appears  in  the  book  of 
Nehemiah  as  the  great  opponent  of  the  interests  of  Jeru- 
salem, and  in  Josephus  as  the  founder  of  the  Samaritan 
religion.  Hanani,  the  brother  of  Nehemiah,  was  one  of  the 
Jewish  leaders,  especially  spoken  of  as  "a  faithful  man" 
(Neh.  I  :  2;  7  :  2,  cf.  12  :  36).  He  was  given  "charge 
over  Jerusalem"  about  B.  C.  444.  The  high  priest  Jeho- 
hanan  is  mentioned  in  Nehemiah  as  Johanan  or  Jona- 
than, and  in  Josephus  as  John.  Nehemiah  gives  the 
succession  of  high  priests  as  Eliashib,  Joiada,  Johanan, 
Jaddua.  Josephus  says  that  John  was  in  relations  with 
Bagoses,  "the  general  of  another  Artaxerxes'  army."  In 
the  Jeb  letters  are  mentioned  sons  of  Sanballat,  v.'ith 
names  compounded  from  the  name  of  Jehovah,  and  one 
of  them  at  least  is  associated  in  authority  with  Bagohi. 
Apparently  the  Samaritan  worship  of  Jehovah  is  recog- 
nized by  the  Persian  authorities. 

I.  Strenuous  efforts  are  made  to  press  these  papyri 
into  the  service  of  the  current  Sadducean  criticism. 


248  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

For  instance  Jeremiah  (42-44)  threatens  extermination 

to  the  Jews  engaged  in  a  certain  migration  to  Egypt,  after 

Do  these  ^^^  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  Nebu- 

Letters  Discredit   chadnezzar.    A  recent  writer  cites  Jere- 

jeremiah  ?  miah's  declaration  that  these  Jews  should 

die  by  the  sword,  and  says :    "The  papyri  show  that  they 

did  not  die.     .     .     .     Here  again  the  contention  of  the 

critics  has  been  sustained,  for  they  have  long  held  that 

the  prophets   were   not  infallible   in   their   warnings   of 

future  events."     There  is  no  ground  for  this  inference. 

The  men  who  wrote  to  Bagohi  were  not  the  men  whom 

Jeremiah  threatened  180  years  previously,  and  there  is 

no  proof  that  they  were  descendants  of  those  men.  There 

were  other  migrations  of  people  of  Israelitish  blood  to 

Egypt,  both  before  and  after  the  time  of  Jeremiah. 

It  is  true  that  some  of  Jeremiah's  statements  are  very 
sweeping.  For  instance,  he  represents  Jehovah  as  saying : 
"My  name  shall  no  more  be  named  in  the  mouth  of  any 
man  of  Judah  in  all  the  land  of  Egypt"  (44  :  26).  But 
even  in  this  his  auditors  may  naturally  have  understood 
him  to  refer  exclusively  to  the  Jews  of  that  migration, 
and  not  to  those  who  went  to  Egypt  in  earlier  or  later 
generations.  And  however  this  may  be,  he  certainly  did 
not  intend  to  be  understood  to  mean  that  Jehovah's  name 
would  never  again  be  mentioned  by  Jews  in  Egypt,  but 
only  that  there  would  be  a  time  w^hen  the  mention  of  it 
would  cease.  If  Jehovah  was  mentioned  at  Jeb  half  a 
century  afterward,  in  and  before  the  time  of  Cambyses, 
that  is  in  no  way  contradictory  to  Jeremiah's  prediction. 
The  same  writer  says  that  the  existence  of  the  Jeb 
temple  was  in  violation  of  the  pentateuchal  laws  that  re- 


Aramaic  Papyri  frovi  Egypt  249 

quire  one  central  place  of  sacrifice  for  all  Israel.  He 
says  this  with  the  impHcation  that  it  therefore  proves  that 
those  laws  are  not  authentic,  and  that  the 
a  d  D  t  r  nom  testimony  of  the  pentateuch  and  the  his- 
torical books  concerning  them  is  false. 
Ke  speaks  of  certain  laws  to  the  efifect  "that  there  should 
be  but  one  central  sanctuary,  and  that  there  alone  sac- 
rifices and  offerings  should  be  brought" ;  and  concerning 
these  he  says:  "There  is  passage  after  passage  in  the 
pentateuch  and  in  the  historical  books  which  would  make 
these  servants  of  Jehovah  in  the  fortress  of  Jeb  trans- 
gressors of  the  most  explicit  commands  of  Israel's  God." 
His  reasoning  is  as  clear  as  it  is  fallacious.  He  says  that 
the  successive  books  of  the  Bible  say  that  from  very  an- 
cient times  Jehovah  forbade  certain  kinds  of  sacrifice  in 
Israel  save  at  one  national  place  of  sacrifice;  that  from 
the  time  of  the  building  of  Solomon's  temple,  that  was 
the  one  place  of  sacrifice,  and  the  law  forbade  these  sac- 
rifices elsewhere.  And  then  he  says  that  the  case  of  the 
Jeb  temple  proves  that  such  sacrifices  actually  were  of- 
fered elsewhere  than  at  Jerusalem,  and  therefore  proves 
that  the  Bible  representation  of  the  matter  is  mistaken. 

The  same  reasoning  appears  in  numberless  other  ar- 
ticles that  have  been  published.  But  could  any  reasoning 
be  more  superficial?  There  are  three  simple  considera- 
tions, each  of  which  decisively  disproves  it. 

First,  the  reasoning  has  not  a  particle  of  force  except 
on  the  assumption  that  the  sacrifices  at  Jeb  were  legiti- 
mate, and  were  so  regarded  at  the  time  by  the  religious 
leaders  of  the  Jews.  The  record  does  not  sustain  this 
assumption,  but  indicates  the  contrary.    The  Jeb  interests 


250  Reaso7iable  Biblical  Criticism 

applied  first  to  Bagohi  and  the  Jerusalem  priesthood. 
They  recognized  that  priesthood  as  the  legitimate  author- 
ity, and  that  authority  turned  them  down.  The  acknowl- 
edged religious  leaders  refused  to  recognize  them.  It 
was  only  when  they  made  common  cause  with  the  schis- 
matic Samaritans,  and  backed  up  their  application  by 
bribery,  that  Bagohi  made  terms  with  them.  Whatever 
else  may  be  true  of  Jehohanan  and  his  associates,  they 
are  in  line  with  the  pentateuch  and  the  other  Scriptures 
in  refusing  to  recognize  any  other  than  the  one  place  of 
sacrifice. 

Second,  the  reasoning  has  no  force  except  on  the 
assumption  that  the  laws  mentioned  in  the  pentateuch  and 
the  other  books  are  such  as  would  forbid  the  sacrifices 
at  Jeb;  and  this  assumption  is  groundless.  The  single 
sanctuary  laws  expressly  limit  themselves  to  the  land 
of  Canaan  {e.  g.  Deut.  12).  As  to  temples  or  worship 
on  any  other  territory  these  laws  are  silent.  They  no- 
where prohibit  a  place  of  sacrifice  in  Egypt. 

Third,  every  one  of  these  article-writers  believes  that 
the  central  sanctuary  laws  had  been  publicly  known  at 
least  from  the  time  of  King  Josiah,  more  than  200  years 
before  the  Jeb  letters  were  written.  As  the  Jeb  instance 
does  not  prove  the  non-existence  of  the  laws  during  those 
two  centuries,  it  no  more  proves  their  non-existence  for 
the  preceding  centuries. 

In  fine,  if  the  Jeb  temple  had  existed  in  the  promised 
land,  before  Josiah's  time,  with  undoubted  legitimacy, 
it  might  serve  the  purpose  of  these  reasoners;  but  it  is 
lacking  in  all  three  points. 

These  considerations   are   decisive   from   any  possible 


Aramaic  Papyri  from  Egypt  251 

point  of  view.  As  a  fact,  however,  the  participants  in 
the  Jeb  affair  were  less  interested  in  the  old  issue  con- 
cerning Jerusalem  as  the  religious  center  for  the  land  of 
Israel  than  in  the  new  issue  concerning  Jerusalem  as  the 
Jewish  religious  center  for  the  nations.  This  new  issue, 
of  course,  does  not  enter  into  the  question  now  under 
discussion. 

II.  We  have  thus  seen  that  the  alleged  evidence  from 
these  papyri  in  favor  of  certain  critical  theories  vanishes 
on  examination.  On  the  contrary,  the  evidence  from 
them  against  those  theories  is  decisive. 

The  especial  value  of  these  documents  lies  in  the  fact 
that  they  date  from  the  time  of  Nehemiah  and  the  latest 
Old  Testament  events,  and  so  give  contemporary  evidence 
concerning  the  situation  at  that  date.  The  older  church 
tradition  takes  one  view  of  that  situation,  and  the  newer 
critical  traditions  take  a  contradictory  view.  The  papyri 
essentially  confirm  the  older  tradition,  and  conclusively 
refute  the  adverse  criticism. 

The  earlier  traditions,  some  of  them  dating  from  the 
early  Christian  centuries  and  earlier,   ascribe   the   com- 
The  Men  of       pleting  of   the   Old   Testament   to   men 
the  Great  who  are  described  as  ''the  men  of  the 

Synagogue  Great  Synagogue."  The  term  is  applied 
to  a  succession  of  men  which  covered  a  period  of  nearly 
300  years,  beginning  with  Daniel  and  his  companions  and 
ending  with  the  high-priest  Simon  the  Just,  whom  the 
traditions  represent  to  have  been  a  contemporary  of  Alex- 
ander the  Great.  About  midway  in  the  succession  are 
Ezra  and  Nehemiah.  The  earlier  forms  of  the  tradition 
do  not  speak  of  Ezra  as  the  beginner  of  the  succession. 


252  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

though  they  make  him  the  great  man  of  the  succession. 
Many  heedless  statements  to  the  contrary  notwithstand- 
ing, the  traditions  regard  Nehemiah  as  the  man  who  com- 
pleted the  Old  Testament.  They  assign  no  writing  of 
Scripture  to  any  man  later  than  Nehemiah.  Counting  the 
men  of  the  Great  Synagogue  as  a  succession  of  men  later 
than  that  of  the  prophets,  they  also  count  the  two  suc- 
cessions as  overlapping,  many  of  the  men  of  the  Great 
Synagogue  being  prophets.  They  assign  no  writing  of 
Scripture  to  any  of  the  post-prophetic  men  of  the  Great 
Synagogue.  The  term  "Great  Synagogue"  is  perhaps  a 
monument  of  the  epoch-making  convocation  held  under 
Ezra  and  Nehemiah  (Neh.  8-10). 

These  traditions  have  been  very  mechanically  inter- 
preted by  some,  transforming  the  succession  of  men  into 
an  ecclesiastical  organization,  surrounding  the  person  of 
Ezra  with  unauthentic  details,  and  thus  weakening  the 
evidence  by  confusing  it  with  matters  that  are  incredible. 
Nevertheless  the  traditions  are  of  the  nature  of  testi- 
mony, and  when  freed  from  accretions  and  mistaken 
interpretations  they  are  credible  testimony.  This  testi- 
mony is  to  the  efifect  that  the  Old  Testament  was  com- 
pleted within  the  lifetime  of  Nehemiah,  not  later  or  not 
much  later  than  the  close  of  the  reign  of  Darius  Nothus, 
B.  C.  405. 

The  books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  dis- 
Ezra,  Nehemiah,    ,.       .,  i.     i.i,-  •  -pi 

andjosephus         ^'^^^^^    support    this    View.      They    say 

{e.  g.  Ezra  3)  that  the  priestly  law  was 

in  detailed  operation  under  Zerubbabel,  two  generations 

before  Ezra,  and  that  It  came  from  Moses.    Further,  they 

make  statements  and  present  phenomena  which  indicate 


Aramaic  Papyri  from  Egypt  253 

that  the  whole  Old  Testament  was  in  existence  before 
the  death  of  Nehemiah.  Josephus  presents  the  same 
view  as  true,  but  also  presents  a  view  inconsistent  with 
it.  Notice  a  few  details  in  illustration  of  these  state- 
ments. 

In  Nehemiah  distinguish  between  the  narrative  and  the 
genealogical  note  by  which  the  narrative  is  interrupted 
(Neh.  II  :  3-12  :  2(^,  partly  duplicated  in  i  Chron.  9). 
The  latest  event  in  the  narrative  is  the  expulsion  of  a 
young  man  of  the  family  of  Joiada,  the  high  priest, 
for  marrying  a  woman  of  the  family  of  Sanballat  (Neh. 
13  :  28).  Josephus  mentions  apparently  the  same  inci- 
dent, and  more  in  detail  {Ant.  XI.  vii,  viii).  He  says  that 
the  man's  name  was  Manasseh,  that  he  was  the  son  of 
Johanan  (and  therefore  the  grandson  of  Joiada),  that  he 
was  excluded  from  the  high-priesthood  in  favor  of  his 
brother  Jaddua,  that  Sanballat  procured  for  him  the 
founding  of  the  rival  temple  on  Mount  Gerizim,  that  the 
contemporary  Persian  king  was  Darius. 

Fitting  into  this,  the  latest  item  in  the  genealogical  note 
in  Nehemiah  is  a  certain  enrolment  (Neh.  12,  especially 
verses  lo-ii,  22-23,  2(y).  It  is  dated  "in  the  reign  of 
Darius  the  Persian,"  and  "up  to  the  days  of  Johanan," 
though  Jaddua,  Johanan's  son  and  successor,  is  included 
in  it.  It  is  also  connected  with  "the  days  of  Nehemiah 
the  governor,  and  of  Ezra  the  priest,  the  scribe." 

Johanan  Josephus  adds  an  item  concerning  the 

and  high    priest    Johanan.      He    says    that 

Bagoses  Johanan    had    a    brother   named    Jesus, 

who  was  the  friend  of  "Bagoses,  the  general  of  another 

Artaxerxes*  army,"  and  that  Bagoses  intended  to  make 


254  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

Jesus  high  priest.  Johanan  killed  Jesus  in  the  tem- 
ple. Bagoses  made  this  a  pretext  for  polluting  the  temple, 
and  exacting  a  tax  of  fifty  shekels  on  every  lamb  offered 
in  sacrifice.  Bagoses  thus  operates  in  Jerusalem  the 
financial  methods  which  he  has  learned  from  the  priests 
of  Jeb.  In  characterizing  him  Josephus  and  the  Jeb 
letters  agree  strikingly. 

Josephus  and  Nehemiah  agree  that  the  high  priest 
Johanan  was  contemporary  with  a  Persian  king  named 
Darius,  and  Josephus  also  says  that  he  was  contempo- 
rary with  ''another  Artaxerxes."  By  the  most  obvious 
identifications  the  Artaxerxes  who  commissioned  Nehe- 
miah was  Longimanus,  B.  C.  465-424 ;  the  Darius  in  ques- 
tion was  Nothus,  B.  C.  424-405 ;  the  ''other  Artaxerxes" 
was  Mnemon,  B.  C.  405-359. 

If  these  identifications  are  correct  the  Old  Testament 
narrative  terminates  not  later  than  the  earliest  decades  of 
Old  Testament     ^^  fourth  century  B.  C,  within  the  prob- 
Completed  able  lifetime  of  Nehemiah.   As  the  latest 

about  B.C.  400  books  bear  marks  of  being  written  up  to 
date,  this  confirms  the  tradition  that  Nehemiah  com- 
pleted the  Old  Testament.  This  is  confirmed  by  such 
very  significant  phenomena  as  that  the  books  of  Ezra  and 
Nehemiah  are  written  largely  in  the  first  person  in  the 
names  of  these  two  men ;  and  that  they  are  full  of  Persian 
words  and  proper  names  and  objects  and  incidents,  while 
they  are  correspondingly  free  from  Greek  marks.  The 
case  is  a  remarkably  strong  one. 

There  is  som.ething  to  be  said  in  opposition,  however. 
Josephus  also  says  that  Jaddua,  the  son  of  Johanan,  was 
high  priest  in  the  time  of  Alexander  the  Great.     It  is  not 


Aramaic  Papyri  fro77i  Egypt  255 

strange  that  many  have  followed  this  statement  to  the  neg- 
lect of  the  rest  of  the  testimony.     Josephus  confuses  his 
Josephus  Persian    kings.      He    seems    to    assume 

Concerning-       that  the  Darius  who  appointed  Sanballat 
Jaddua  was  not  Darius  Nothus,  but  the  Darius 

whom  Alexander  the  Great  defeated  90  years  later. 
He  says  that  Sanballat  obtained  a  permit  from  Alex- 
ander to  build  the  Gerizim  temple,  and  that  Jaddua, 
the  son  of  Johanan,  was  then  high  priest  in  Jerusalem. 
Josephus  was  prejudiced  against  the  Samaritans,  and 
wanted  to  discount  their  claim  to  antiquity  as  much  as 
possible.  His  prejudice  got  the  better  of  his  somewhat 
limited  arithmetical  abilities.  His  dating  Sanballat  and 
Jaddua  as  late  as  Alexander  is  of  course  an  absurdity.  In 
it  he  contradicts  himself  as  well  as  Nehemiah,  and  is 
contradicted  by  the  Jewish  traditions,  which  say  that  the 
high  priest  of  Alexander's  time  was  Jaddua's  grandson, 
Simon  the  Just.  Various  other  considerations  show  that 
this  opinion  of  Josephus  is  simply  impossible. 

Yet  there  are  those  who  accept  this  impossible  opinion. 

The  acceptance  of  it  is  an  absolute  necessity   for  the 

agnostic  and  semiagnostic  critics.     With 

^  ?..   PP°f*"^     |-}^ej^    i^    Js    an    essential    doctrine    that 
Critical  View 

Deuteronomy  originated  in  the  reign  of 

King  Josiah,  that  most  of  the  pentateuchal  priestly  laws 
date  from  the  times  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  and  their 
associates,  and  that  the  completed  pentateuch  dates  from 
the  same  time  and  later.  But  they  and  their  opponents 
would  agree  in  the  statement  that  more  than  half  of  the 
varied  writings  which  constitute  the  Old  Testament  pre- 
suppose Deuteronomy  and  the  pentateuchal  priestly  leg- 


256  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

islation.  It  follows  that  if  this  theory  were  true  the  Old 
Testament  aggregate  could  not  have  been  completed  in 
less  than  five  or  six  generations  after  Nehemiah.  In 
fact,  the  more  moderate  advocates  of  the  theory  assign 
the  latest  Old  Testament  books  to  dates  ranging  from 
B.  C.  250  to  B.  C.  150,  and  those  who  are  more  con- 
sistent assign  them  to  dates  still  later. 

The  issue  thus  made  is  square  and  comprehensive.     If 
the  aggregate  was  substantially  completed  before  Nehe- 
miah died,  then  the  larger  half  of  it  was 
The  Issue         not     written     during     the     generations 
after   Nehemiah,   but   was   written  cen- 
turies earlier ;  and  all  parts  of  the  pentateuch  were  written 
many   centuries   earlier.     The   issue   extends   along   the 
whole  line  from  the  latest  Old  Testament  prophets  back 
to  Moses. 

For   settling   this   issue   the   Egyptian   papyri    furnish 

proof  that  is  of  the  utmost  importance.     They  reinforce 

Where  the        ^^^^  proof  that  the  latest  Old  Testament 

Papyri  events  occurred  not  later  or  not  much 

Come  In  later  than  B.  C.  400,  reinforce  it  in  such 

a  way  that  this  fact  will  now  have  to  be  accepted  even  by 

those  who  have  heretofore  disputed  it. 

Unless  the  advocates  of  the  newer  tradition  can  break 
down  this  fact  their  case  is  lost.  They  recognize  the  situa- 
tion, and  make  strenuous  efforts  to  meet  it.  In  particular 
they  resort  to  two  lines  of  argument.  First,  they  attempt 
to  prove  that  these  latest  Old  Testament  events  occurred 
much  later  than  about  400  B.  C. ;  and  second,  they  resort 
to  elaborate  linguistic  research  in  proof  that  the  Aramaic 
parts  of  Ezra — and  likewise  of  Daniel — belong  to  a  date 


Aramaic  Papyri  from  Egypt  257 

much  later  than  the  time  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah.  In 
both  these  lines  of  evidence  the  recently  discovered  papyri 
completely  prove  them  to  be  in  the  wrong. 

First,  they  argue  that  the  latest  Old  Testament  situa- 
tions include  events  later  than  the  possible  lifetime  of 
Nehemiah.  To  make  this  out,  they  follow  Josephus 
when  he  counts  Jaddua  as  contemporary  with  Alexander. 
They  claim  that  the  Darius  of  Johanan  must  have  been 
Codomannus,  B.  C.  336-332.  They  identify  Bagoses  with 
an  official  of  Artaxerxes  Ochus,  B.  C.  350  or  later.  They 
even  deny  that  the  biblical  Artaxerxes  was  Longimanus, 
and  try  to  think  that  he  is  one  of  the  later  kings  of  that 
name.  By  these  processes  they  put  the  facts  into  utter 
confusion,  and  then  regard  the  confusion  as  indicating 
not  that  they  are  in  the  wrong,  but  that  the  records  are  in 
the  wrong. 

In  view  of  these  claims  it  is  interesting  to  find  contem- 
porary documents  which  show  beyond  dispute  that  the 

Darius  in  question  was  Nothus ;  that  the 

The  Biblical  ^  .  ,.  ^   .   .       . 

Facts  Vindicated    ^^g^pses  m  question  was  an  official  of 

Darius  Nothus,  and  may  also  have  held 

office  under  Artaxerxes  Mnemon,  but  certainly  not  under 

the  later  Artaxerxes ;  that  Sanballat  and  his  sons  belong 

to  the  time  of  Nothus  and  not  to  the  time  of  Codomannus, 

90   years    later;    that    Johanan    was    high    priest    under 

Nothus,  and  therefore  that  his  son  Jaddua  cannot  have 

been  the  contemporary  of  Alexander.     The  papyri  settle 

these  points,  settle  them  so  that  they  can  hardly  be  raised 

again,  and  settle  them  in  favor  of  the  view  which  counts 

the  Old  Testament  as  trustworthy. 

Yet  more  important,  if  possible,  are  the  linguistic  data 


258  Reaso7table  Biblical  Criticism 

furnished  by  the  recently  discovered  papyri.     The  great 

proof  alleged  for  the  late  date  of  the  books  of  Ezra  and 

Nehemiah   (and  therefore  one  great  al- 
Light  on  Biblical   ,^^      ^^^^  ^^  ^^^  ^^^^  ^^^^^  ^^.^.^^j  ^^^_ 

Aramaic  ,      .  ,  ,  .  ,  •   \    1         1 

elusions  that  depend  on  this)   has  been 

derived  from  the  character  of  the  Aramaic  in  which 
parts  of  Ezra  are  written.  Dr.  Driver  and  many  others 
have  accumulated  point  after  point  in  proof  that  just  such 
Aramaic  was  not  in  use  till  several  generations  after  the 
time  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah.  Heretofore  there  have  been 
insufficient  data  for  comparison ;  the  proofs  have  been 
based  on  theory  rather  than  on  fact.  Now  we  have  facts 
by  which  to  test  them.  Our  papyri  are  actual  specimens 
of  the  Aramaic  that  was  used  by  Jews  in  the  Persian 
empire  in  the  time  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah.  By  them  we 
may  try  the  linguistic  arguments  in  the  case.  Professor 
Robert  D.  Wilson,  of  Princeton,  has  conclusively  shown 
that  the  Aramaic  used  by  these  Jews  in  their  correspond- 
ence with  Jerusalem  is  of  the  same  linguistic  type  with 
that  of  the  books  of  Ezra  and  Daniel. 

The  results  obtained  from  these  papyri  are  not  merely 
a  few  items  of  detail  concerning  an  ob- 
Net  Results       scure  period   of   history;  they  are   far- 
reaching,  and  cover  the  whole  range  of 
Bible  criticism.    In  dating  a  biblical  writing  a  critic  does 
not,  as  a  rule,  explicitly  argue  to  the  effect  that  he  is  con- 
vinced that  certain  parts  of  the  pentateuch  w^ere  written 
after  B.  C.  400,  and  that  the  writing  in  question,  since 
It  presupposes  those  parts  of  the  pentateuch,  must  have 
originated  still  later.    Advocates  of  critical  theories  should 
see  perfectly  well  that  to  argue  thus  would  be  to  base 


Aramaic  Papyri  from  Egypt  259 

their  theories  upon  their  theories.  Some  of  them  at  least 
see  this,  and  attempt  to  obey  critical  laws.  When  they 
perceive  that  their  theories  imply  certain  conditions  they 
go  hunting  for  proof  that  those  conditions  actually 
existed.  They  have  hunted  laboriously  for  proofs  that 
the  several  parts  of  the  Old  Testament  were  written  late 
enough  to  make  their  theories  possible.  These  Egyptian 
papyri,  either  directly  or  by  inevitable  analogy,  wipe  out 
so  large  a  proportion  of  their  attempted  proofs  that  they 
now  have  the  work  to  do  all  over  again. 

The  current  critical  views  appear  in  Driver's  "Introduc- 
tion" and  in  other  books  of  reference,  in  the  treatments 
of  Ezra  and  Daniel  and  other  late  Old 
Literature  Testament  books.  On  the  papyri  note 
the  following  among  other  titles :  "Ara- 
maic Papyri  Discovered  at  Assuan,"  Sayce  and  Cowley, 
1906.  Articles  by  Cowley  in  the  "Proceedings"  of  the 
Society  of  Biblical  Archaeology,  1903.  "Drel  Aramiiische 
Papyrusurkunden  aus  Elephantine,"  Sachau,  1907.  Two 
of  the  papyri  are  printed  In  Gressmann's  "Texte  und 
Bilder  zum  Alten  Testamente."  The  principal  Jeb  letter 
is  given  in  the  Appendix  to  Toffteen's  "Historic  Exodus," 
with  a  pretty  full  list  of  the  literature  of  the  subject, 
which  see.  Among  the  numerous  reprints  and  articles 
may  be  mentioned  those  In  the  Expositor,  December, 
1907;  the  Independent,  December  5  and  26,  1907;  The 
Sunday  School  Times,  February  15,  1908;  the  Bible  Stu- 
dent and  Teacher,  February,  1908.  See  also  Chapter 
XXII. 


PART  IV 


REASONABLE  CRITICISM  AND  SOME  OF 
THE  BOOKS 


CHAPTER  XIX 

THE    BOOK    OF    DEUTERONOMY 

Introduction.  I.  The  book  itself.  Divisions  and  structure. 
Mosaic  authorship  as  claimed  in  the  several  parts.  The 
great  Deuteronomic  law.  Opposing  views.  A  supposable 
fictional  hypothesis.  Current  defective  arguments.  The 
denial  of  the  central  fact.  II.  Deuteronomy  and  the  whole 
history  of  the  religion  of  Jehovah.  The  other  books  pre- 
suppose Deuteronomy.  For  example,  Joshua.  Judges  and 
Samuel.  Kings  and  Chronicles.  The  histories  emphasize  the 
great  Deuteronomic  law.  Attempts  in  contradiction  of  this. 
Value  of  the  testimony.  Its  bearings.  Conclusion :  The  two 
alternatives.    Literature. 

There  is  not  room  in  this  little  volume  to  give  separate 
consideration  to  all  the  books  of  the  Bible.  We  must 
select  a  few,  giving  the  preference  to  those  that  are  typi- 
cal in  character.  From  the  point  of  view  of  the  question 
whether  the  Bible  is  truthful,  Deuteronomy  stands  in  the 
foreground,  because  the  question  of  its  truthfulness  is 
bound  up  with  that  of  all  the  other  books  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments.  We  will  first  briefly  study  Deuteron- 
omy as  a  book,  and  will  then  study  it  as  presupposed  in  the 
history  of  the  religion  of  Jehovah. 

I.  First,  the  book  of  Deuteronomy  it- 
Investigate  ^^j^  You  might  supposably  read  some 
for  Yourself  ^         ^  °  ^     , 

thousands  of  pages,  advocatmg  various 

views,  and  try  to  balance  the  opposing  arguments.  But 
there  is  a  shorter  and  more  decisive  way.  The  im- 
portant phenomena  are  accessible  to  you ;  make  your  own 

263 


264  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

examination  of  them,  and  draw  your  own  conclusions. 
Please  to  open  your  Bible  at  Deuteronomy,  and  observe 
certain  phenomena.  If  you  see  for  yourself  you  will  be 
more  sure  of  the  facts,  and  you  will  understand  them 
more  clearly. 

Observe  that  the  first  two  verses  appear  to  be  a  gen- 
eral descriptive  title  to  the  book.  They  say  that  it  consists 
Divisions  and  ^^  utterances  by  Moses,  made  while  Israel 
Structure  of  was  encamped  east  of  the  Jordan  or  on 
Deuteronomy  the  route  thither  from  Horeb.  Glance 
the  book  through  and  you  see  that  its  contents  perfectly 
fit  this  description.  Then  observe  that  verses  3-5  are  a 
second  long  title,  the  title  of  an  address  which  they  desig- 
nate as  "this  law,"  and  which  they  affirm  that  "Moses 
spake/*  mentioning  the  place  and  the  date.  The  place  is 
"across  the  Jordan,"  and  the  date  is  the  first  day  of  the 
eleventh  month  of  the  fortieth  year.  Read  this  address. 
You  observe  that  it  deals  with  reminiscences  of  the 
speaker  and  his  hearers,  experiences  which  they  have 
shared  during  the  forty  years  when  Israel  was  in  the 
wilderness.  These  are  arranged  and  commented  on  homi- 
letically.  You  have  no  difficulty  in  perceiving  that  the 
address  comes  to  a  close  in  the  fourth  chapter,  the  fortieth 
verse.  It  is  followed  by  three  verses  of  narrative,  which 
mention  the  setting  apart  by  Moses  of  three  cities  of 
refuge  east  of  the  Jordan.  The  implication  seems  to  be 
that  the  address  was  connected  with  the  occasion  of  the 
setting  apart  of  those  cities. 

Following  these  three  verses  is  another  title,  long  and 
circumstantial,  introducing  another  address  which  is  de- 
scribed as  "the  law"  "which  Moses  spake,"  dated  from 


The  Book  of  Deuteronomy  265 

the  same  place,  and,  by  implication,  from  about  the  same 
time  as  the  first  discourse.  Read  and  you  will  find  that 
this  "law"  extends  to  the  close  of  the  twenty-sixth  chap- 
ter, though  it  is  sharply  divided  at  the  close  of  the  eleventh 
chapter.  The  first  of  these  two  parts  is  mainly  the  re- 
peating, with  much  added  exhortation,  of  laws  and  narra- 
tive from  Exodus.  There  are  some  variations.  Practi- 
cally all  these  may  be  accounted  for  by  the  view  that  the 
speaker  in  Deuteronomy  assumes  that  his  hearers  are 
familiar  with  the  facts  recorded  in  Exodus,  and  will 
understand  him  accordingly.  The  second  part  of  this 
second  discourse  in  Deuteronomy  consists  of  a  series  of 
laws,  some  of  them  found  elsewhere  in  the  pentateuch 
and  some  not.  The  laws  are  moral,  civil,  ceremonial,  but 
they  are  those  which  the  rulers  and  the  people  would 
need  to  know,  and  not  such  as  were  intended  especially 
for  the  priests. 

With  chapter  27,  you  will  observe,  begins  a  third  paper 
(chapters  27-28)  supplementary  to  the  second,  a  paper 
which  deals  with  blessings  and  curses  conditioned  on 
obedience  or  disobedience  to  the  law.  Chapters  29-30 
are  "the  words  of  the  covenant  which  Jehovah  com- 
manded Moses  ...  in  the  land  of  Moab."  The  re- 
maining chapters  are  a  narrative  incorporating  two  poems 
(32  :   1-43;  33)  each  purporting  to  be  by  Moses. 

Emphasis  Upon        Perhaps  you  are  familiar  with  all  this. 

the  Mosaic  If  not,  read  and  reread  until  the  literary 

Authorship  divisions  of  the  book,  and  its  contents 

as  defined  by  its  literary  divisions,  stand  out  clearly  be- 
fore your  mind.  It  will  pay  to  do  this.  The  book 
is  a  magnificent  piece  of  literature,  and  is  worth  master- 


266  Reaso7iable  Biblical  G^iticism 

ing  in  that  character.  And  if  you  thus  give  it  due  atten- 
tion you  will  not  fail  to  see  not  only  that  every  separate 
part  of  it  claims  to  be  of  the  time  of  Moses  and  by  Moses, 
but  also  that  throughout  Moses  is  presupposed  as  the 
speaker  in  the  details  that  are  mentioned.  As  one  line  of 
instances,  observe  how  often  the  speaker  in  Deuteronomy 
uses  the  pronouns  of  the  first  and  second  person,  and 
speaks  of  the  events  of  the  time  of  the  exodus  as  coming 
within  the  experience  of  himself  and  his  hearers. 

Now  begin  again  at  chapter  12,  and  read  the  legislation 
observantly.    You  will  find  one  dominant  idea  (12  :  2  ff. 
The  Great  ^"^  parallel  places),  namely  that  Israel, 

Deuteronomic     after  taking  possession  of  the  promised 
^^^  land,   shall  have  one  place   of   national 

sacrifice,  and  only  one.  A  part  of  the  law  is  that  they 
shall  destroy  all  the  Canaanitish  highplaces  with  the 
"pillars"  and  asherahs  beside  their  altars.  The  law  is 
sweeping,  but  it  is  explicitly  limited  (Deut.  12  :  10, 
etc.).  It  is  for  the  future  only.  It  does  not  reflect  upon 
the  ''pillars"  beside  the  altars  of  Jacob  or  of  Moses 
{e.  g.  Gen.  35  :  14;  Exod.  24  :  4).  It  is  operative  only 
in  the  territory  of  Canaan,  not  in  Egypt  or  other  countries. 
It  forbids  only  the  ''pillars"  of  the  highplace  altars,  not 
memorial  pillars  elsewhere.  It  exempts  private  sacrificial 
feasts  (Deut.  12  :  15,  21,  where  the  Hebrew  is  "thou 
mayest  make  a  sacrifice"  rather  than  "mayest  kill") .  This 
law,  thus  carefully  defined,  is  the  heart  of  Deuteronomy. 
If  Deuteronomy  is  true  history  this  law  was  in  exist- 
ence (though  not  necessarily  in  efiFective  operation)  from 
the  time  of  Moses. 

On  the  face  of  it,  therefore,  the  several  parts  of  Deu- 


The  Book  of  Deuteronomy  267 

teronomy,  and  in  particular  the  great  Deuteronomic  law, 
claim  to  have  originated  in  the  time  of  Moses,  and  to  be 
especially  the  expression  of  his  mind  and  of  divine  inspir- 
ation through  him. 

In  contradiction  with  this  is  the  opinion  stated  by  Dr. 
Ryle  in  the  article  on  Deuteronomy  in  the  Hastings  Bible 

Dictionary.     "It  is  generally  agreed  that 
e    pposing     ^j^^  book  may  have  been  written  in  the 

reign  of  Manasseh,  or  in  the  early  part 
of  the  reign  of  Josiah." 

The  idea  is,  of  course,  that  the  book  found  in  the 
eighteenth  year  of  Josiah,  B.  C.  621  (2  Kings  22-23),  was 
Deuteronomy,  or  perhaps  some  of  the  contents  of  Deuter- 
onomy in  an  earlier  form,  and  that  it  was  written  and 
placed  in  the  temple  not  long  before  it  was  found  there. 

If  there  were  good  reasons  for  holding  that  our  book 
of  Deuteronomy  was  written  a  good  many  hundred  years 

later  than   Moses,   it  might  perhaps  be 
H     othe  is       possible  to  frame  a  hypothesis  that  would 

not  be  discrediting  to  the  book.  You  can 
suppose,  if  you  please,  that  a  prophet  of  Manasseh's  time 
had  in  his  possession  a  mass  of  Mosaic  materials,  and 
that  it  occurred  to  him  to  make  an  effective  book  by  cast- 
ing his  materials  into  the  form  of  a  series  of  addresses  and 
poems  by  Moses,  with  a  thread  of  connecting  narrative. 
If  you  regard  his  materials  as  genuine,  and  his  use  of 
them  as  competent  and  truthful,  and  the  fictional  form  as 
open,  with  no  intent  to  deceive,  you  may  thus  make  of  the 
work  a  religious  parable,  from  beginning  to  end,  and 
may  assign  to  it  a  worthy  character,  even  though  you  do 
not  regard  it  as  properly  historical. 


268  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

This  hypothesis,  however,  is  purely  academic.  No 
one  actually  holds  it,  though  such  a  man  as  Dr.  Ryle 
makes  some  approximation  to  it.  It  illustrates,  however, 
the  fact  that  if  you  could  separate  the  question  of  author- 
ship by  Moses  from  other  questions  it  would  be  a  much 
less  serious  question  than  it  is. 

The  gravity  of  the  question  makes  itself  apparent  when 

you  study  the  arguments  which  are  claimed  as  proving 

that  Deuteronomy  was  not  written  till 

Mischievous  ^i        ^-  r    t      •    1  --ni 

-^         .  near  the  time  of  Josiah.     ihere  are  no 

conclusive  arguments  to  this  effect.  You 
will  be  struck  by  this  if  you  read  the  articles  advocating 
this  view,  in  the  current  Bible  Dictionaries,  or  in  the 
books  from  which  these  articles  draw  as  sources.  In 
most  cases  there  are  signs  that  the  writer  received  this 
view  as  a  tradition,  and  is  hunting  for  reasons  to  sustain 
him  in  a  position  which  he  has  already  taken.  Nine 
tenths  of  the  points  made  are  strained,  and  the  remaining 
tenth  are  insufficient  to  make  out  a  case.  All  the  unreas- 
onable processes  mentioned  in  chapters  V  and  VI  of  this 
volume  enter  into  these  arguments.  Most  of  them  may 
be  promptly  disposed  of  by  giving  a  reasonable  definition 
to  the  idea  of  authorship  by  Moses,  or  by  applying  to  the 
case  the  ordinary  laws  of  criticism. 

If  you  could  segregate  the  question  you  might  inno- 
cently hold  to  a  late  date  for  the  book  of  Deuteronomy  in 
its  present  form.  But  if  you  undertake  to  prove  this 
late  date  by  groundless  allegations  of  contradiction  and 
mistake  in  the  account,  at  a  hundred  different  points,  if 
by  way  of  proving  late  authorship  you  impugn  the  ver- 
acity of  the  account  at  a  hundred  points,  you  make  your 


The  Book  of  Deuteronomy  269 

position  objectionable  by  the  reasonings  you  use,  quite 
irrespective  of  the  results  you  reach. 

But  the  argument  to  prove  the  late  date  of  Deuteron- 
omy is  not  based  on  details  only,  but  on  the  alleged  falsity 
of  the  central  facts  of  the  history  as  pre- 

C  tral  r  t  sented  in  Deuteronomy.  It  is  alleged 
that  the  idea  of  a  single  place  of  national 
sacrifice  did  not  exist  in  Israel  until  near  the  time,  in 
Josiah's  reign,  when  the  book  was  found.  The  alleged 
fact  that  this  idea  did  not  exist  is  pushed  to  the  front  as 
the  one  principal  proof  that  Deuteronomy  was  not  written 
till  then.  That  is  to  say,  the  theory  holds  that  the  book 
of  Deuteronomy  is  not  merely  an  invention,  but  is  a  false- 
hood from  beginning  to  end.  Of  course  this  assertion  ex- 
cludes the  idea  that  the  book  is  justifiable  fiction  of  any 
kind.  "Forgery"  is  the  term  commonly  used  by  those 
who  argue  that  Deuteronomy  dates  from  Josiah's  reign. 
They  say  that  the  book  is  not  merely  fiction,  but  a  fiction 
intended  to  give  an  idea  of  the  past  which  its  authors 
did  not  know  to  be  true,  and  which  was  in  fact  false. 

Among  those  who  hold  to  the  Josiah  date  of  Deuteron- 
omy there  are  various  degrees  of  frankness  in  uttering 
the  conclusions  just  mentioned,  and  there  are  various 
ways  of  defending  or  palliating  the  conduct  of  the  men 
who,  they  say,  thus  published  Deuteronomy.  But  the 
unavoidable  basis  of  the  whole  theory  is  the  alleged  fact 
that  these  men  deliberately  promulgated  an  untrue  history 
of  the  religion  of  Israel,  with  the  intention  of  having  it 
accepted  as  true. 

One  has  got  to  choose  between  this  and  the  opinion 
that  the  Scriptures  are  truthful ;  he  cannot  hold  both. 


2/0  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticis7n 

II.  In  this,  Deuteronomy  does  not  stand  by  itself;  the 
question  involves  all  those  parts  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments  which  deal  with  the  history  of  the  religion 
of  Jehovah.  The  field  is  so  wide  that  we  cannot  now 
traverse  the  whole  of  it.  We  will  look  only  at  a  relatively 
narrow   part. 

No  one  disputes  that  the  book  of  Joshua  presupposes 
Deuteronomy,  with  its  central  sanctuary  laws  and  its 
other  institutions.  It  affirms  that  under 
Witness  of  Joshua  Joshua  the  central  sanctuary  was  estab- 
lished at  Shiloh.  Joshua  is  a  part  of  the 
hexateuch.  Those  who  hold  to  the  Josiah  origin  of 
Deuteronomy  dispose  of  the  testimony  of  the  book  of 
Joshua  in  the  same  ways  in  which  they  dispose  of  that 
of  Deuteronomy  itself. 

The  Polychrome  Bible  prints  the  following  parts  of 
the  book  of  Judges  in  green,  to  indicate  that  they  are 

Deuteronomic  in  character:  2:7,  ii- 
Witness  of  Judges    ,  ^      o  i  j 

and  Samuel  ^5,  18-19,  22  and  3  :  I,  3,  7-15,  29-30  and 

4  :  1-4,  23-24  and  5  :  31b  and  6  :  1-6 
and  8  :  27b-28,  33-35,  and  10  :  6-9,  17-18  and  13  :  i  and 
15  :  20.  Look  up  these  passages,  and  you  will  see  that 
the  editor  Is  correct  in  the  idea  that  the  book  of  Judges  as 
it  stands  largely  presupposes  the  contents  of  Deuteron- 
omy. The  same  is  quite  as  decidedly  true  of  the  two 
books  of  Samuel  {e.  g.  i  Sam.  8;  2  Sam.  7  :  iff.).  These 
books  presuppose  Deuteronomy  as  well  known  at  the  time 
when  they  were  written.  They  also  testify  to  the  Deu- 
teronomic institutions  and  to  Deuteronomic  phraseology 
as  being  known  in  Israel  during  the  whole  period  from 
Joshua  to  David. 


The  Book  of  Deuteronomy  271 

Turning  to   the  books   of   Kings   and   Chronicles   the 
testimony  concerning  Deuteronomy  is  even  more  abund- 
ant,  and   is   more   expHcit.     It  concerns 
Witness  of  Kin^s    u.i       i       >>  11  j 

J  ^.-      -1  the  law    as  a  whole,  and  concerns  par- 

and  Chronicles  '     . 

ticular  precepts,   referrmg  these   to   the 

authorship  of  Moses  {e.  g.  2  Kings  14  :  5-6  and  scores  of 
other  places).  And  apart  from  all  details,  the  one  lesson 
which  these  books  constantly  push  to  the  front  is  that  of 
the  existence  and  the  obligation,  in  the  times  of  which 
they  treat,  of  the  law  which  required  one  national  place 
of  sacrifice  for  all  Israel,  and  prohibited  all  places  but 
the  one. 

In  the  account  of  Jeroboam  I  all  the  stress  is  laid  on 
the  fact  that  he  violated  this  law.  The  Jerusalem  temple 
was  the  one  chosen  place,  and  he  established  other  places 
in  Bethel  and  Dan ;  and  further,  he  recognized  the  local 
highplaces  as  legitimate.  The  condemnation  of  his  wick- 
edness in  this  is  made  vivid  by  details,  and  is  made  em- 
phatic by  reiteration.  And  his  successors  are  condemned 
one  by  one  for  practicing  "the  sin  of  Jeroboam  the  son 
of  Nebat  wherein  he  sinned  and  made  Israel  to  sin."  This 
sin  is  represented  as  a  heinous  one.  For  it  the  successive 
dynasties  of  northern  Israel  are  exterminated. 

The  same  standard  is  set  up  for  the  southern  kingdom. 
These  accounts  speak  of  the  kings  of  Judah  as  doing  the 
right  or  the  evil  according  as  each  one  does  or  fails  to 
do  all  in  his  power  to  abolish  the  highplaces  and  centralize 
the  national  sacrifices  in  the  temple  in  Jerusalem.  It 
would  not  be  true  to  say  that  these  writers  regard  this 
as  more  important  than  doing  justice  and  loving  kindli- 
ness, but  they  keep  it  more  to  the  front,  as  being  an 


2/2  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

obvious  and  practical  way  of  showing  allegiance  to 
Jehovah. 

No  critic  of  any  school  denies  the  facts  as  thus  stated, 
or  denies  that  the  laws  for  a  central  sanctuary  thus  em- 
phasized are  those  found  in  Deuteronomy. 

The  men  who  say  that  Deuteronomy  was  written  late 
attempt  to  show  that  these  parts  of  the  record  are  con- 
tradicted and  discredited  by  other  parts. 

R  b*ttal  They  say,  for  example,  that  Elijah's  ad- 

herents worshiped  Jehovah  at  plural 
altars  (i  Kings  i8  :  30;  19  :  10,  14).  But  there  is  no 
proof  that  they  offered  at  these  altars  any  of  the  sacrifices 
prohibited  in  Deuteronomy,  and  in  any  case  these  altars 
seem  to  have  been  an  emergency  provision.  They  cite 
often  and  conspicuously  Isaiah's  mention  of  an  altar  and 
a  "pillar"  in  the  land  of  Egypt  (Isa.  19  :  19-25).  But 
these  would  not  be  contrary  to  the  law  in  Deuteronomy, 
for  that  law  expressly  limits  its  prohibition  to  the  land  of 
Canaan.  They  insist  on  certain  passages  which  mention 
institutions,  for  example  the  following  (Hos.  3:4): 
"For  the  sons  of  Israel  shall  abide  many  days  without 
king,  and  without  captain,  and  without  sacrifice,  and  with- 
out pillar,  and  without  ephod  or  teraphim."  They  say  that 
the  "pillar"  is  here  mentioned  as  legitimate,  and  that  this 
proves  that  the  law  forbidding  it  was  not  yet  in  existence 
in  Hosea's  time.  But  the  "pillar"  is  here  mentioned  as 
one  of  several  existing  institutions ;  there  is  no  ground 
for  saying  that  it  is  mentioned  with  approval.  Just  to 
mention  an  institution  is  a  different  thing  from  sanction- 
ing it  as  legitimate.  Probably  no  competent  person  who 
has  really  examined  the  matter  will  deny  that  all  the 


The  Book  of  Deictei^onomy  273 

alleged  passages  are  capable,  without  strain,  of  being  so 

understood  as  to  be  consistent  with  the  view  that  is  made 

prominent  in  Kings  and  Chronicles  and  Amos  and  Hosea. 

The  opposite  understanding  is  at  most  mere  opinion. 

For  fairness  in  weighing  this  evidence  let  us  remember 

that  no  scholar  of  any  school  doubts  that  the  narrative 

books  of  the  Bible  were  larg^ely  made  up 
Weighing  the       ,  .        ,         ^.  /.  ^,  ^ 

Te  tim  n  irom  sources  previously  existmg.      ihe 

question  is  as  to  the  trustworthiness  of 
the  sources,  and  the  good  faith  of  the  men  who  used 
them.  The  books  of  Kings  in  their  present  form  were 
not  written  earlier  than  the  closing  years  of  the  life  of 
Jeremiah,  and  the  books  of  Chronicles  not  earlier  than 
the  closing  years  of  the  life  of  Nehemiah.  All  known 
evidence  indicates  also  that  they  were  respectively  writ- 
ten not  much  later  than  the  lives  of  Jeremiah  and  Nehe- 
miah, though  nothing  in  the  present  argument  would 
suffer  if  one  should  suppose  them  to  be  some  generations 
later.  But  however  this  may  be,  the  books  as  they  stand 
represent  that  this  idea  of  one  national  place  of  sacrifice 
for  all  Israel  was  a  familiar  idea  at  every  stage  of  the 
history  from  the  time  of  Moses.  They  do  not  say  that 
the  law  was  constantly  in  effective  operation,  but  they  say 
that  men  knew  of  it.  They  say  that  the  contemporary 
prophets  preached  it  in  the  times  of  Jeroboam  and  Asa 
and  Jehoshaphat.  This  is  the  testimony  of  Kings  as  well 
as  of  Chronicles.  They  represent  that  the  prophets  of 
every  later  time  also  preached  this  doctrine.  In  the  exile 
the  author  of  Kings  is  insistent  in  impressing  it  upon  his 
fellow-Israelites,  and  after  the  restoration  the  author  of 
Chronicles  equally  felt  its  importance. 


2  74  Reasonable  Biblical  Cfiticzsm 

The  question  is  not  whether  the  narrative  books  con- 
tain inadvertences.  It  is  not  whether  some  of  the  stories 
may  have  been  made  picturesque  by 
Q       .  dashes    of    imaginative    coloring.      It    is 

whether  the  narrative  is  false  in  its  essen- 
tial features.  If  the  discovery  made  in  Josiah's  time  was 
the  original  publication  of  the  law  for  one  place  of  sacri- 
fice, then  that  law  did  not  exist  in  Israel  till  three  cen- 
turies after  Jeroboam  I,  and  every  statement  which  affirms 
or  implies  that  it  existed  in  these  earlier  times  is  a  fabrica- 
tion. Whoever  holds  that  the  great  Deuteronomic  law  was 
first  published  in  Josiah's  time  is  thereby  compelled  to 
count  as  false  the  proposition  that  the  law  was  well  known 
and  obligatory  some  centuries  before  Josiah.  He  has  to 
do  this.  He  cannot  help  himself.  It  is  not  a  matter  of 
personal  consistency,  but  of  the  laws  of  human  thinking. 

The  theory  is  that  the  men  of  Josiah's  time  and  later 
possessed  the  legislation  concerning  the  central  sanctuary, 
and  believed  in  it;  that  when  they  found  no  account  of 
it  in  the  history  of  the  past,  they  invented  accounts  of  it, 
and  inserted  these  into  the  older  records  which  were  in 
their  possession ;  that  they  made  these  invented  facts  con- 
cerning the  central  sanctuary  to  be  the  dominating  idea  in 
the  books  of  Kings ;  that  men  of  the  same  type  reworked 
the  writings  of  Amos  and  Hosea  and  other  prophets,  in- 
terpolating the  central  sanctuary  into  all  parts  of  them; 
that  the  books  of  Judges  and  Samuel  were  subjected  to 
a  like  reworking;  that  the  books  of  Chronicles  are  a 
product  of  similar  processes  at  a  more  advanced  stage. 

In  other  words,  the  theory  is  that  all  that  is  most 
characteristic  In  these  parts  of  the  Bible  is  the  product 


The  Book  of  De^Ueronomy  275 

of  deliberate  and  deceiving  falsification,  intended  to  lead 

men  to  believe  important  statements  which  their  authors 

did  not  know  to  be  true,  and  which  were 

The  Alternative    in  fact  untrue.     It  is  not  a  question  of 

a  few  unintentional  mistakes,  but  of  the 

falsity  of  the  things  that  are  most  important  in  the  record ; 

not  a  question  of  incidents  made  picturesque  by  the  play 

of  imagination  upon  them,  but  of  serious  deception  in 

matters  that  are  vital. 

No  one  defends  the  theory  by  claiming  that  the  char- 
acter which  it  assigns  to  the  Bible  writings  is  that  of  any 
legitimate  form  of  fiction.  "Forgery"  is  the  term  which 
they  most  commonly  apply  to  the  processes  by  which 
they  allege  that  these  writings  were  produced.  Those 
who  are  disposed  to  palliate  the  charge  of  forgery  plead 
that  in  those  centuries  scientific  criticism  and  the  idea  of 
literary  property  were  not  so  well  developed  as  now,  and 
that  we  must  not  judge  the  men  by  our  more  advanced 
standards.  This  defense  concedes  the  facts  as  charged  in 
the  indictment;  namely,  that  the  person  indicted  holds 
that  these  parts  of  the  Bible  were  written  to  propagate  a 
view  of  the  history  which  is  in  fact  false,  and  which  their 
writers  ought  to  have  known  to  be  false. 

The  alternative  is  to  accept  the  contents  of  Deuteron- 
omy as  historical,  and  as  true  when  correctly  under- 
stood, and  therefore  to  accept  Deuteronomy  as  in  a 
legitimate  sense  the  work  of  Moses.  It  is  not  neces- 
sary to  claim  that  in  his  lifetime  he  completed  the  book 
in  its  present  form.  In  the  last  chapter  we  are  told 
that  "there  hath  not  arisen  a  prophet  since  In  Israel  like 
unto  Moses."    Such  a  phrase  would  hardly  be  used  earlier 


276  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

than  three  or  four  decades  after  the  death  of  Moses. 
Other  instances  similar  in  effect  may  be  found  in  different 
parts  of  the  book.  In  completing  Deuteronomy  something 
was  left  for  the  literary  executors  of  Moses  to  do.  But 
Moses  is  the  man  who  is  especially  responsible  for  the 
existence  of  Deuteronomy  as  a  literary  product,  and  this 
fact  establishes  his  claim  as  the  author  of  the  said  product. 
The  literature  of  the  subject  is  voluminous.  In  the 
recent  Bible  Dictionaries  read  the  articles,  and  consult 

the  lists  of  books  given,  under  such  titles 
Literature        as  Deuteronomy,  Pentateuch,  Hexateuch, 

Kings,  Chronicles,  Amos,  Hosea,  His- 
tory of  Israel,  Scriptures.  Most  of  these  works  assume 
that  Deuteronomy  was  written  in  Josiah's  time ;  but  its 
Mosaic  origin  is  defended,  more  or  less  thoroughly,  in  the 
Davis,  the  Piercy,  and  the  Temple  Bible  Dictionaries,  and 
in  some  of  the  articles  in  the  new  Schaff-Herzog  Ency- 
clopedia. Among  the  volumes  or  series  of  volumes  that 
advocate  the  theory  of  the  late  date  of  Deuteronomy  one 
may  mention  Wellhausen's  '''Prolegomena,"  Driver's  'Tn- 
troduction,"  Addis'  "Documents  of  the  Hexateuch," 
Carpenter's  "Hexateuch,"  the  Polychrome  Bible.  Among 
those  that  advocate  the  opposite  view  are  Green's  "Higher 
Criticism  of  the  Pentateuch,"  and  "Mosaic  Origin  of  the 
Pentateuchal  Codes,"  Bissell's  "The  Pentateuch.  Its  Ori- 
gin and  Structure,"  Bartlett's  "The  Veracity  of  the  Hexa- 
teuch," Gladstone's  "Impregnable  Rock  of  Holy  Scrip- 
ture." 


CHAPTER  XX 

THE    BOOK    OF    DANIEL 

Introductory:  Our  ideas  concerning  the  book.  The  object  under 
observation.  Daniel  as  the  subject.  The  stories  and  their 
contents.  The  visions  and  their  contents.  The  real  values 
of  the  book  of  Daniel.  I.  Questions  of  date  and  authorship. 
Possible  theories  under  the  laws  of  permutation.  Is  Daniel 
the  author?  The  conditions  in  the  time  of  Nehemiah.  The 
alleged  Maccabean  date.  Driver's  arguments  from  historical 
facts.  From  language :  Persian,  Greek,  Aramaic,  Hebrew. 
From  the  theology  of  the  book.  From  independent  considera- 
tions :  Antiochus  Epiphanes ;  the  world-view  in  Daniel.  Mac- 
cabean use  of  the  book.  A  hypothesis.  II.  Questions  of  his- 
toricity and  truthfulness.  Do  not  confuse  the  two.  Two 
ways  of  thinking  consistent  with  maintaining  the  truthfulness 
of  the  book.  Other  ways  of  thinking  that  are  not  consistent 
with  this.     Conclusions. 

In  the  minds  of  most  persons,  doubtless,  the  book  of 
Daniel  is  that  part  of  the  Bible  which  contains  the  won- 
derful  stories  of  the  men   in   the  fiery 
Prevalent  Ide&s     r  j  ^i  •     ^i       j  e  y- 

X   XL    »     1      furnace  and  the  man  m  the  den  of  lions, 
as  to  the  Book  ,  .  . 

and  the  writing  on  the  wall,  and  the  king 

who  ate  grass  like  oxen;  and  which  also  contains  fore- 
casts of  the  future,  made  specific  by  numerical  dates. 
The  most  voluminous  study  of  the  book  has  been  along 
the  line  of  the  attempts  to  write  from  it  the  future  his- 
tory of  mankind ;  next  to  that,  probably,  have  been  the 
investigations  concerning  its  date  and  authorship  and 
structure.  In  this  chapter  we  shall  omit  the  first  of  these 
lines  of  study,  and  shall  have  to  be  brief  in  dealing  with 
the  second. 

277 


278  Reaso7iable  Biblical  Criticism 

The  book  of  Daniel  is  before  us  as  the  object  of  our 

observation ;  therefore  observe  it.    Read  it  in  the  Hebrew 

and  Aramaic,  if  you  can;  if  not,  use  the 

The  Object  Under  ^^^^   translation   available.      The   Greek 

Observation  .  ^   t^       •   ,  1 

copies  of  Daniel  are  so  variant,  and  so 

unlike  the  Hebrew,  that  they  constitute  a  problem  by 
themselves.  You  will  at  once  observe  that  the  divisions  of 
the  book  are  obvious.  In  consists  of  two  parts.  In  the 
first  part,  the  first  six  chapters,  Daniel  is  spoken  of  in  the 
third  person;  in  the  second  part,  he  speaks  in  the  first 
person.  The  first  part  consists  of  a  narrative  introduc- 
tion and  five  wonderful  stories;  the  second  part  consists 
of  four  apocalyptic  visions.  As  the  first  wonderful  story 
(chap.  2)  includes  an  apocalyptic  vision,  the  book  has 
five  of  these  forecasts  of  the  future.  In  the  first  part 
the  first  chapter  and  the  first  three  and  a  half  verses  of 
the  second  chapter  are  in  Hebrew,  and  the  remainder  in 
Aramaic;  in  the  second  part,  the  seventh  chapter  is  in 
Aramaic,  and  the  remaining  chapters  in  Hebrew. 

Observe,  further,  that  the  subject  of  the  book  through* 

out  is  the  experiences  of  the  man  named  Daniel,  and  of 

other  persons  in  various  ways  associated 

Danielas  ^.^^  y^^^^     Daniel  is  pictured  as  many- 

the  Subject  .  ,     ,  ,  1     .  1  • 

Sided,  and  as  a  very  great  man;  but  his 

principal  characteristic  is  his  possession  of  intercessory 
gift;  he  can  mediate  between  men  and  Deity.  He  is  rep- 
resented as  living  in  the  time  contemporary  with  the 
prophet  Ezekiel,  and  he  is  mentioned  in  the  writings  of 
that  prophet  (Ezek.  14  :  14,  20;  28  :  3)  as  a  person  dis- 
tinguished for  saving  men  by  intercession.  In  the 
books  of  Ezekiel  and  Daniel,   in  expressed   statements 


The  Book  of  Daniel  279 

or  by  clear  implications,  we  have  a  pretty  full  biography 
of  him,  including  dates  in  the  accession  year  of  Nebu- 
chadnezzar, the  second  year  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  the  first 
and  the  third  years  of  Belshazzar,  the  first  year  of  Darius 
the  Mede,  the  first  and  the  third  years  of  Cyrus.  In  these 
biographical  notices  his  character  is  sketched,  clearly  and 
congruously  and  differentially. 

Three  of  the  stories  are  capable  of  being  described  as 

stories   of   combat,   built   on   the   same   model   with   the 

stories  of  Jonah  and  of  Esther.     In  the 

^.     ^     .  first  (Dan.  2),  a  Hebrew  boy,  with  Te- 

the  Stones  ^  Y  •        t  •  i 

hovah   for  helper,   is  pitted  agamst  the 

world  empire  of  his  time.  The  result  proves  the  correct- 
ness of  our  modern  maxim  that  "one  with  God  is  a 
majority."  In  the  second  story  three  men  (Dan.  3),  and 
in  the  fifth  one  old  man  (Dan  5  :  31  to  6  :  27)  are  re- 
spectively pitted  against  the  world  empire  and  with  the 
same  result.  The  third  and  fourth  stories  (Dan.  4  and  5  : 
1-30)  illustrate  the  folly  of  not  taking  God  into  the  ac- 
count. Along  with  these  central  lessons  are  others  not 
less  valuable.  The  literary  and  ethical  and  religious 
values  are  of  the  highest  order,  and  their  value  is  of  an 
enduring  type.  The  element  of  the  marvelous  in  them 
gives  grip  to  the  truths  which  they  present.  They  are  a 
triumph  of  literary  art. 

In  the  five  apocalyptic  visions  there  is 

xL.°  ,,^"/ °       set  forth  a  conception  of  human  history 

the  Visions  .        .  ^  .  .  -^ 

terminating  in  the  manifestation  of  the 

everlasting  kingdom  of  Jehovah.  We  cannot  here  dis- 
cuss the  specifications,  nor  even  the  question  whether 
they  look  forward  to  the  Roman  and  post-Roman  times, 


28o  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

or  terminate  in  the  times  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes.  In 
any  case,  they  present  the  idea  of  God's  having  a  plan 
in  the  history  of  mankind — working  in  and  through 
the  great  empires,  the  wars,  the  intrigues,  the  apparent 
defeats  of  the  right,  the  turmoils,  the  miseries,  making 
all  subservient  to  his  great  and  beneficent  purpose. 

Do  not  make  the  mistake  of  thinking  that  the  book  of 
Daniel  is  valueless  to  you  in  case  you  cannot  solve  its  criti- 
cal and  apocalyptic  problems ;  and  do  not  delay,  pending 
your  solution  of  the  problems,  to  appropriate  the  values 
which  the  book  thus  offers.  Whatever  else  may  be  true  of 
these  stories  and  apocalypses,  they  are  in  any  case  a  won- 
derfully vivid  and  strong  presentation  of  ideas  that  are 
true  and  great  and  practical.  If  you  get  hold  of  these  ideas 
you  accomplish  that  which  is  worth  most,  whether  you 
succeed  in  your  attempts  to  solve  the  problems  or  not. 
And  the  presentations  of  these  ideas  are  in  themselves 
a  part  of  the  facts  in  the  case ;  if  you  neglect  them  your 
solutions  of  the  problems  will  be  so  far  forth  vitiated. 

I.  We  take  up,  first,  the  question  of  date  and  author- 
ship, though  many  of  the  facts  that  bear  on  this  question 
bear  also  on  the  questions  of  historicity  and  truthfulness. 

Under  the  laws  of  permutation  the  number  of  possibly 

plausible   hypotheses   concerning  the   authorship   of   the 

book  of   Daniel   is   without   limit.     Did 

Possible  ^^^  author  write  the  whole  book?     Did 

Hypotheses  .         ..       ^  ,  t  i 

one  write  the  first  part,  and  another  the 

second  part?  Did  the  several  stories,  or  the  several 
visions,  come  from  different  authors  ?  Were  the  Hebrew 
parts  translated  from  Aramaic  originals?  Were  the 
Aramaic  parts  translated  from  Hebrew  originals?    The 


The  Book  of  Daniel  281 

answers  to  these  questions  are  capable  of  numberless 
combinations  into  numberless  theories  of  authorship. 

It  is  likely  that  most  persons  who  regard  the  book  as 
historical  have  taken  for  granted  that  Daniel  is  the  au- 
thor of  the  whole.  This,  however,  is 
'  ^     hardly  probable.    The  book,  as  a  whole, 

does  not  claim  that  Daniel  wrote  it. 
That  he  is  the  author  of  the  second  part  is  a  natural  and 
obvious  inference.  The  visions  are  narrated  in  the  first 
person,  and  the  matter  of  writing  is  mentioned.  ''He 
wrote  the  dream"  (7  :  i).  "Shut  thou  up  the  words  and 
seal  the  book"  (12  :  4).  Compare  8  :  26;  9  :  24;  10  : 
21 ;  12  :  9.  If  one  is  convinced  that  the  visions  are  fic- 
tion, he  will,  of  course,  hold  that  their  author  was  not 
Daniel,  but  a  later  man  who  writes  in  the  person  of 
Daniel.  Unless  one  is  so  convinced,  he  will  naturally 
find  in  these  visions  the  literary  style  of  Daniel  himself. 

If  one  finds  this,  it  will  be  a  reason  for  his  not  believ- 
ing that  this  same  Daniel  wrote  the  first  part  of  the  book, 
Written  in  ^"^  P^^  ^^  parts  together.  The  Hebrew 
the  Time  of  of  the  last  five  chapters  is  crabbed,  in 
Nehemiah  ?  contrast  wath  the  fluent  narrative  of  the 
first  chapter.  In  the  matter  of  Persian  marks  Parts  I 
and  II  are  in  contrast.  In  the  last  six  chapters  are  found 
three  Persian  words,  the  words  for  law,  dainties,  palace 
(7  :  25;  II  :  26,  45),  each  occurring  once.  In  the  first 
six  chapters  are  found  fourteen  or  more  Persian  words, 
occurring  in  all  several  dozen  times.  They  are  used,  used 
particularly  in  designating  public  officials  and  functions, 
for  the  times  of  Nebuchadnezzar  as  well  as  for  the  times 
of  Cyrus  (see  Driver's  Introduction,  ed.  of  1897,  p.  501). 


282 


Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 


So  far  as  Persian  marks  are  concerned,  the  four  vision 
narratives  may  well  have  been  written  at  the  very  begin- 
ning of  the  Persian  period,  while  the  writing  of  the  in- 
troductory narrative  and  the  five  stories  (the  Belshazzar 
story  excepted)  was  possible  only  after  the  Persian  of- 
ficial terms  and  other  Persian  words  had  become  natural- 
ized in  current  Israelitish  speech. 

In  the  Hebrew  bibles  the  books  of  Ecclesiastes,  Esther, 
Daniel,  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  Chronicles,  come  together  at 
the  close  of  the  collection.  There  is  reason  to  regard  this 
order  as  indicating  that  the  men  who  formed  the  collec- 
tion thought  that  the  completed  book  of  Daniel  was  of 
about  the  same  date  with  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  and  Chron- 
icles. That  date  I  believe  to  have  been  about  B.  C.  400 
(see  chapters  XVIII,  XXII).  Many  phenomena  might 
be  cited  in  detail  in  confirmation  of  this  view.  For  ex- 
ample, the  books  just  mentioned  are  those  which  are 
marked  by  their  containing  Persian  words.  Or,  again, 
Daniel's  contemporaries,  Ezekiel  and  Jeremiah,  com- 
monly spell  the  name  of  the  Babylonian  king  Nebuchad- 
rezzar, while  the  book  of  Daniel  agrees  with  Ezra  and 
Chronicles  in  the  less  correct  spelling  Nebuchadnezzar. 

To  make  clear  the  views  held  in  opposition  to  this  let 

us  examine  the  treatment  of  the  subject  in  Dr.  Driver's 

Introduction.     Dr.  Driver  at  this  point 

ege       acca-    gj^^^g  himself  to  be  the  most  conserva- 
bean  Date 

tive  of  all  the  scholars  of  the  Modern 
View,  and  one  of  the  ablest.  He  is  appreciative  of  the 
book  of  Daniel,  and  has  a  worthy  idea  of  it.  Expressly 
or  by  implication  he  repudiates  many  of  the  slighting 
statements  that  have  been  made  concerning  it.     If  his 


The  Book  of  Daniel  283 

arguments  in  proof  of  the  late  date  of  the  book  will  not 
stand,  much  less  will  the  arguments  of  other  men  who  are 
less  cautious. 

He  says  (pp.  497  fif.)  that  the  book  was  certainly  writ- 
ten later  than  B.  C.  300,  and  probably  about  B.  C.  168  or 
[67.  He  uses  the  first  of  these  dates,  however,  only  in 
a  precautionary  way,  his  real  opinion  being  expressed  in 
the  second.  He  regards  the  book  of  Daniel,  the  whole 
of  it,  as  a  religious  fiction,  based,  however,  on  historical 
traditions,  written  for  the  purpose  of  inspiring  the  ad- 
herents of  the  Maccabees  in  their  struggles  with  the 
Seleucid  kings.  In  support  of  this  he  argues  from 
"facts  of  a  historical  nature,"  from  "the  language  of 
Daniel,"  from  "the  theology  of  the  book,"  and  from  "in- 
dependent considerations." 

In  regard  to  four  of  his  eight  arguments   from  his- 
torical fact  Dr.  Driver  would  not  claim  that  they  have 
Driver's  '^^y  direct  bearing  on   the   question   of 

Arguments  date  and  authorship.     They  are  simply 

from  History  allegations  to  the  effect  that  the  book  is 
so  incorrect  in  its  statements  of  fact  as  to  prove  that  it 
"is  not  the  work  of  a  contemporary."  These  will  be  con- 
sidered later  in  the  present  chapter.  Glance  briefly  at 
the  other  four. 

First,  he  says  that  if  Daniel  had  been  written  before 
the  collection  of  the  earlier  and  later  prophets  was  made, 
it  would  have  been  classified  with  the  prophets,  and  not 
with  the  Hagiographa.  He  therefore  infers  that  it  was 
written  after  that  date.  This  argument  is  really  to  the 
effect  that  inasmuch  as  a  prophet  is  a  predicter,  and 
Daniel  is  especially  a  predictive  book,  it  has  an  especial 


284  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

claim  to  be  ranked  among  the  books  of  the  prophets.  The 
argument  loses  its  force  when  we  note  that  the  prophet 
is  a  forthteller  rather  than  a  foreteller.  Quite  irrespect- 
ive of  questions  of  date,  the  book  of  Daniel  is  of  a  dif- 
ferent literary  character  from  most  of  the  books  of  the 
major  and  minor  prophets,  and  it  is  for  that  reason  that 
the  scribes  did  not  put  it  in  the  same  class  with  them. 
Dr.  Driver  himself  well  says  that  its  author  ''does  not 
claim  to  speak  with  the  special  authority  of  the  prophet" 
(p.  513).  In  addition  to  all  this,  nobody  knows  when 
the  prophetic  books  were  collected.  If  they  were  col- 
lected before  the  whole  book  of  Daniel  was  written  that 
would  not  prove  a  date  later  than  about  B.  C.  400. 

Again,  Dr.  Driver  infers  a  late  date  for  Daniel  from 
its  not  being  mentioned  in  Ecclesiasticus  (chapters  44- 
50),  along  with  Isaiah  and  Jeremiah  and  others.  But  it 
is  also  true  that  Ezra  is  not  mentioned  in  that  list.  The 
silence  is  not  one  that  counts  for  much. 

Again,  it  is  stated  that  Daniel  knew  of  Jeremiah's 
prophecy  concerning  the  seventy  years  "by  the  books" 
(Dan.  9:2).  Dr.  Driver  says  that  this  impHes  that 
there  was  then  a  collection  of  the  Jewish  sacred  books, 
and  that  no  such  collection  existed  as  early  as  B.  C.  536. 
He  cannot  prove  that  the  expression  implies  such  a  col- 
lection; and  he  cannot  prove  that  such  a  collection  was 
not  then  in  existence.    His  premises  are  mere  guesses. 

Again,  he  says  that  the  "Chaldeans"  (Dan.  2  :  2, 
etc.)  "are  synonymous  with  the  caste  of  wise  men,"  and 
that  this  use  of  the  term  is  unknown  in  the  Assyrian  and 
Babylonian  languages,  and  "formed  itself  after  the  end 
of  the  Babylonian  empire."     Who  knows  that  the  next 


The  Book  of  Daniel  285 

bulletin  of  excavation  may  not  give  us  an  instance  of  this 
usage  in  Babylonian?  At  all  events,  the  usage  was  com- 
mon before  B.  C.  4CXD. 

Under   the   head   of    "the   language    of    Daniel"    Dr. 
Driver  cites  compactly  the  facts  concerning  the  use  of 
Driver's  Persian  words.    As  against  the  idea  that 

Arguments  Daniel    himself    wrote    the    whole   book 

from  Language  these  phenomena  appear  to  be  decisive, 
but  they  have  no  force  to  prove  for  the  book  a  later  date 
than  that  of  Ezra  and  Chronicles.  If  they  have  weight 
to  prove  that  the  first  six  chapters  of  Daniel  vv^ere  writ- 
ten several  generations  after  the  Persian  domination  be- 
gan, they  have  nearly  equal  weight  to  prove  that  these 
chapters  were  not  written  in  the  Maccabean  times,  160 
years  after  the  Persian  domination  had  been  displaced  by 
the  Greek. 

He  further  cites  the  Greek  words  in  Daniel.  Those 
which  are  in  point  are  some  of  the  names  of  musical  in- 
struments in  Chapter  3,  with,  perhaps,  the  word  for 
"herald"  (3  :  4),  and  "made  proclamation"  (5  :  29). 
Most  of  the  alleged  Greek  words  are  in  dispute,  but  let 
that  pass.  Nothing  can  be  less  improbable  than  that  a 
luxurious  monarch  like  Nebuchadnezzar  may  have  had 
a  Greek  band,  with  Greek  names  for  their  instruments 
and  their  conductor.  The  use  of  this  group  of  technical 
terms,  confined  to  the  narrative  of  a  single  incident,  is  in 
contrast  with  the  distributed  use  of  the  Persian  terms. 
The  Greek  phenomena  in  Daniel  are  such  as  might  have 
appeared  centuries  before  Alexander  the  Great;  they 
have  not  an  atom  of  weight  for  proving  a  late  date  for 
the  book. 


286  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

Dr.  Driver  cites  the  Aramaic  of  Daniel  as  "all  but 
identical  with  that  of  Ezra,"  and  as  belonging  to  a  stage 
of  the  language  much  later  than  that  of  Ezra's  time. 
This  argument  always  was  theoretical  and  tenuous.  Re- 
cently it  has  been  utterly  wiped  out  by  the  discoveries 
of  Aramaic  documents  in  Egypt  and  elsewhere  (see 
Chapter  XVIII).  It  is  now  certainly  known  that  the 
Aramaic  of  Daniel  and  Ezra  is  of  the  type  that  was  cur- 
rent among  the  contemporaries  of  Ezra. 

Dr.  Driver  would  not  claim  that  his  argument  from 
the  Hebrew  of  Daniel  has  much  strength  when  deprived 
of  these  outside  supports. 

His  argument  from  the  theology  of  the  book  is  to  the 

effect  that  certain  theological  ideas  are  in  it  attributed  to 

Daniel  and  others;  that  these  ideas  did 

rgumen  rom  ^^^  exist  in  Israel  till  some  generations 
later  than  Daniel ;  and  therefore  that  the 
book  containing  them  cannot  have  existed  till  that  later 
date.  Even  if  this  argument  were  perfect,  it  would  not 
prove  a  later  date  than  the  time  of  Nehemiah.  But  it  is 
imperfect.  The  premise  to  the  effect  that  these  theological 
ideas  did  not  exist  in  Israel  at  an  earlier  time  is  a  nega- 
tive, impossible  to  prove.  If  the  book  of  Daniel  is  au- 
thentic, it  proves  that  they  existed  as  early  as  the  exile. 

Dr.  Driver's  argument  from  "a  number  of  independent 
considerations"  includes  the  affirmation  that  the  predic- 

Ytom  tions  in  Daniel  bring  the  history  up  to 

Independent       the   time   of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,   and 

Considerations  at  that  point  cease  to  be  specific,  the  in- 
ference being  that  this  phenomenon  indicates  that  the 
writing  was  composed  in  the  time  of  Epiphanes.     Here 


The  Book  of  Daniel  287 

Dr.  Driver  is  handicapped,  because  he  is  not  willing  to 
"deny  the  possibility  of  predictive  prophecy."  One  who 
denies  that  possibility  will,  of  course,  feel  sure  that  the 
book  was  written  after  the  latest  events  predicted  in  it; 
whereas  Dr.  Driver  has  to  limit  himself  to  interpreting 
the  forecasts  as  being  retrospects  in  the  form  of  predic- 
tions.   His  reasonings  are  far  from  decisive. 

As  another  consideration  he  argues  that  the  world- 
view  which  appears  in  Daniel  belongs  to  a  later  stage  than 
that  presented  in  most  of  the  prophetic  books.  He  says 
that  it  is  remarkable  that  Daniel  takes  ''no  interest  in  the 
welfare  or  prospects  of  his  contemporaries,"  that  his 
"Messianic  visions  should  attach  themselves  not  .  .  . 
to  the  approaching  return  of  the  exiles  .  .  .  .  ,  but  to 
the  deliverance  of  his  people  in  a  remote  future"  (p. 
509).  Read  the  ninth  chapter  of  Daniel  and  you  will 
see  that  these  representations  concerning  him  are  incor- 
rect. The  other  differences  between  his  world-view  and 
that  of  the  other  prophets  may  easily  be  accounted  for  by 
the  times  in  which  he  lived,  and  by  the  outlook  he  had  as 
a  member  of  the  government  of  the  Babylonian  and  the 
Medo-Persian  empires. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  the  heroes  of  the  Maccabean 

struggle  found  the  book  of  Daniel  an  inspiring  book  {e.  g. 

I    Mac.    2  :  59-60,    or   the    phraseology 
Maccabean  Use       r  re  \       t^i     ^    i  j  2. 

-_.    .  -  of  I  :  41  It.).    That,  however,  does  not 

of  Daniel  . 

imply  that  they  thought  of  the  book  as  a 

novelty.  It  seems  clear  that  they  received  it  as  a  part  of 
the  ancient  Scriptures.  They  classify  Daniel  and  his 
three  friends  with  Abraham  and  Joseph  and  Phinehas 
and  Joshua  and  Caleb  and  David  and  Elijah.     The  in-- 


288  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

spiring  effect  of  the  book  was  greatly  increased  by  their 
behef  that  the  apocalypses  were  prophetic  utterances 
from  a  past  that  was  then  remote. 

There  are  still  those  who  think  that  the  predictions  in 
Daniel  reach  on  indefinitely  into  the  future,  instead  of 
terminating  in  the  time  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes.  It 
might  be  somewhat  plausibly  argued  that  they  do  not 
refer  to  specific  events,  but  rather  to  the  generic  process 
of  reciprocal  invasion  which  has  been  repeating  itself  in 
that  region  ever  since  the  dawn  of  history.  But  if  we 
refer  the  predictions  to  the  Maccabean  events,  that 
need  not  prevent  our  thinking  that  Daniel  uttered  them, 
provided  we  believe  that  the  prophets  sometimes  made 
predictions.  Can  we  imagine  a  worthier  use  of  the 
predictive  gift  than  that  of  providing  encouragement  and 
inspiration  for  the  men  of  such  a  crisis  as  that? 

We  should  also  remember  that  the  comrades  of  Ezra 

and  Nehemiah  needed  an  inspiring  message  as  really  as 

did   the   men   of   the   Maccabean   times. 

A  Hypothesis  Interest  in  Daniel  would  naturally  be  felt 
by  the  great-grandchildren  of  his  con- 
temporaries and  by  their  families.  Copies  of  his  visions 
would  be  in  circulation  in  Hebrew  and  in  Aramaic.  Tra- 
ditions concerning  him  would  be  abundant.  In  the  minds 
of  the  Jews  of  that  generation  he  would  be  a  great  figure, 
picturesque  and  interesting.  At  that  date  what  should 
hinder  some  prophet,  or  prophets,  either  following  the 
traditions  or  devising  forms  of  parable,  from  writing 
great  religious  stories  with  Daniel  and  his  companions 
for  the  heroes?  What  should  prevent  some  inspired  man 
from  gathermg  such  of  the  stories  and  visions  as  were 


TJie  Book  of  Da7iiel  289 

suitable,  and  writing  an  introductory  sketch,  and  combin- 
ing them  into  our  book  of  Daniel?  Why  not  think  that 
this  was  the  way  in  which  the  Spirit  gave  us  the  book? 

II.  We  turn  to  the  questions  of  historicity  and  of 
truthfulness. 

Do  not  make  the  mistake  of  confusing  these  two  ques- 
tions. There  are  two  ways  of  thinking,  in  the  case  of 
such  a  story  as  that  of  the  fiery  furnace,  which  are  con- 
sistent with  the  truthfulness  of  the  story.  One  is  the  way 
of  thinking  of  those  who  regard  the  story  as  historical, 
provided  they  also  see  that  its  chief  value  consists  in  its 
being  a  presentation  of  ethical  and  religious  ideas.  The 
other  is  the  way  of  those  who  frankly  think  that  the 
narrative  was  not  intended  to  be  understood  as  a  record 
of  facts,  but  was  devised  for  the  purpose  of  presenting 
the  ethical  and  religious  ideas.  A  parable  is  as  true  in  its 
own  sphere  as  if  it  were  perfect  history.  And  what  is 
thus  true  of  this  story  is  substantially  true  of  some  of  the 
other  parts  of  Daniel,  and  of  the  book  of  Daniel  as  a 
whole.  Of  course,  no  narrative  is  at  once  both  parable 
and  history.  One  has  to  choose  between  these  two  ways 
of  thinking.  But  neither  of  them  attributes  untruthful- 
ness or  unworthiness  to  the  book  of  Daniel  or  to  its  parts. 

There  are  other  ways  of  thinking  which  are  less  deserv- 
ing of  hospitality.  Such  is  the  way  of  one  who  gives  all 
his  strength  to  determining  the  question 

,*,  *^*^  *^^. .  ^, .  whether  the  narratives  are  history  or 
Ways  of  Thinking  .u   ^  u     i,  i    r^    r 

parable,  so  that  he  has  none  left  for  ap- 
propriating their  great  ideas.  Such  is  the  way  of  those 
who  try  to  account  for  the  record  as  the  product  of  folk- 
lore processes  rather  than  of  a  mind  that  had  a  prophetic 


290  E.easonable  Biblical  Criticism 

message  to  give.  Such  is  the  way,  at  present  so  common 
in  works  on  Daniel,  of  putting  strained  interpretations  on 
details  in  order  to  make  it  appear  that  the  several  parts 
are  a  faulty  record  of  facts. 

If  the  writer  of  any  part  of  Daniel  intended  his  work 
as  didactic  fiction  it  might  be  legitimate  for  him  to  sketch 
his  pictures  on  lines  different  from  those  of  the  historical 
events.  If  this  has  been  done,  it  is  competent  for  criti- 
cism to  attempt  to  point  out  the  instances,  providing  the 
criticism  also  indicates  the  true  bearings  of  the  instances 
it  points  out.  It  is  not  proper  to  manufacture  such  in- 
stances by  processes  of  interpretation ;  and  it  is  not  proper 
gratuitously  to  put  them  in  such  shape  that  they  dis- 
credit the  truthfulness  of  the  statements  made  in  Daniel. 
For  example,  there  is  no  ground  for  the  sneer  over  ''the 
improbability  that  Daniel  .  .  .  suffered  himself  to  be 
initiated  into  the  class  of  Chaldean  wise  men,"  for  the 
book  of  Daniel  does  not  say  that  he  was  so  initiated. 
Other  alleged  mistakes  may  be  similarly  disposed  of. 
Concerning  Belshazzar  and  Darius  the  Mede,  it  is  per- 
haps true  that  the  guesses  on  one  side  will  balance  those 
on  the  other. 

In  fine,  the  book  of  Daniel  is  truthful,  even  if  it  in- 
cludes an  element  of  didactic  fiction.  And  whatever 
such  elements  it  may  include,  there  are 
Conclusions  sufficient  reasons  for  affirming  the  ex- 
istence of  Daniel  as  a  historical  person, 
and  for  affirming  the  correctness  of  the  sketch  given  of 
him.  Unless  one  denies  the  reaUty  of  predictive  proph- 
ecy, he  has  no  reason  for  denying  that  Daniel's  visions 
occurred  as  the  record  says  they  did.     If  one  holds  that 


The  Book  of  Daniel  291 

some  of  the  stories  are  of  the  nature  of  parable,  and  if 
he  desires  to  be  reasonable  in  so  holding,  he  must  base 
his  view  not  on  the  idea  that  a  record  of  miracle  is  in- 
credible, and  not  on  nagging  criticism  concerning  details, 
but  on  literary  principles ;  that  is,  ultimately,  on  the  way 
in  which  the  composition  makes  its  appeal  to  the  mind 
and  the  picture-making  faculties. 


CHAPTER  XXI 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER 


Introductory  outline :  Vashti  succeeded  by  Esther,  Haman's  plot, 
Esther's  cowardice  and  her  daring,  the  gallows  and  the 
pageant  of  honor,  the  victory  of  the  right.  The  feast  of 
Purim.  Ethics  of  the  book  of  Esther:  revenge,  ambitious 
marriages.  The  religious  character  of  the  book,  its  omis- 
sions, its  recognition  of  God  as  the  unseen  Reality.  The 
great  truths  of  the  book,  and  some  of  its  minor  lessons. 
Early  misapprehensions  concerning  it,  including  the  Greek 
variations  and  additions.  Literary  characteristics:  humor, 
marks  of  composition,  Persian  marks,  ornate  style.  Date, 
within  the  Persian  period.  Discussions  concerning  canon- 
icity.  Truthfulness.  Historicity:  traditional  opinion,  veri- 
similitude, a  true  presentation  of  the  times.  Were  the  events 
actual?  Is  the  story  a  parable?  Compromise  notions.  Bad 
theories  and  worse  details.     The  true  theory. 

The  reason  for  selecting  the  book  of  Esther  as  the  sub- 
ject of  one  of  these  chapters  is  this — that  it  is  perhaps, 
as  we  shall  see,  the  book  which  has  been  more  attacked 
and  sneered  at  than  any  other  book  of  the  Bible. 

Look  up  the  contents.     Unlike  most  of  the  books  of 
the  Bible  it  is  not  a  collection  of  tracts,  but  a  continuous 
story.      It    is   the    story   of   a   beautiful 
s^^  °  Jewish  girl,  at  the  outset  vain  and  super- 

ficial and  faulty,  though  with  reserved 
strength  of  character,  who  becomes  the  wife  of  the  sov- 
ereign of  the  Persian  empire.  The  characteristic  of  this 
king  is  that  he  is  conscious  of  doing  things  on  a  more 
magnificent  scale  than  had  ever  been  known  before. 
292 


The  Book  of  Esther  293 

The  story  opens  with  an  account  of  a  royal  feast  given 
on  such  a  scale.  In  the  course  of  the  feast  he  makes 
an  unreasonable  demand  of  his  queen,  Vashti,  and  she 
refuses.  The  king  magniloquently  regards  her  refusal 
as  a  great  public  question.  In  order  to  protect  the  men 
of  his  realm  from  the  perils  of  wifely  disobedience,  which 
he  sees  impending,  he  deposes  Vashti.  After  a  while 
he  misses  her,  and  wants  a  queen.  They  establish  a 
magnificent  system  of  candidacy  in  order  to  obtain  one 
worthy  of  him.  The  Jewish  girl,  backed  by  her  keen- 
minded  cousin,  becomes  a  candidate,  and  wins.  She 
thinks  it  unnecessary  to  mention  that  she  is  a  Jew,  and 
that  fact  remains  a  secret.  Possibly  people  think  of  the 
Jew  as  her  business  manager  and  not  as  a  relative. 
Meanwhile  the  cousin  and  the  queen  have  a  chance  to 
save  the  life  of  the  king.  They  do  it,  and  the  deed  is  put 
on  record,  and  forgotten. 

Apparently  the  king  did  not  cease  to  love  his  young 
wife,  but  he  did  not  devote  himself  so  exclusively  to  her 
as  to  make  the  thing  monotonous.  He  greatly  appre- 
ciated the  society  of  one  Haman,  who  played  into  his 
idea  of  doing  large  things  such  as  no  one  else  would  have 
thought  of.  Haman  worked  him  for  a  scheme  of  getting 
fabulously  rich  and  popular  by  killing  all  the  Jews  in  his 
kingdom  and  confiscating  their  property.  The  queen's 
cousin  with  much  difficulty  persuaded  her  to  attempt  to 
interfere.  She  dressed  as  charmingly  as  possible,  and 
then  risked  her  life  by  coming  unbidden  into  the  king's 
presence.  Her  audacity  was  successful.  But  she  had  too 
much  tact  to  run  the  risk  of  preferring  her  request  then 
and  there.     She  merely  invited  the  king  and  Haman  to 


294  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

a  banquet  which  she  had  prepared  for  them ;  and  at  that 
banquet  she  refused  to  tell  the  king  what  she  desired, 
but  only  asked  him  and  Haman  to  come  to  another 
banquet  the  next  day. 

Haman  thought  that  this  was  the  greatest  success  that 
he  had  yet  scored.  He  seemed  to  himself  to  be  at  the 
pinnacle.  One  little  thing,  however,  made  him  angry. 
There  was  a  Jew  who  looked  him  defiantly  in  the  face, 
instead  of  crouching  before  him.  That  Jew  was  the 
queen's  cousin,  though  Haman  did  not  know  it.  He  had 
a  gallows  made,  intending  next  day  to  ask  the  king  that 
the  disrespectful  Jew  might  be  hanged.  Haman  was  an 
imaginative  man.  A  gallows  eight  feet  high  would  have 
been  sufficient,  but  he  gratified  his  fancy  by  having  the 
gallows  made  about  eighty  feet  high. 

Meanwhile  something  occurred.  The  king  did  not  go 
to  sleep  promptly  that  night.  Perhaps  he  was  kept  awake 
by  his  curiosity,  or  even,  possibly,  by  his  anxiety,  as  to 
what  his  wife  wanted;  or  his  wakefulness  may  have  been 
due  to  indigestion,  or  to  some  other  cause.  He  had  them 
bring  the  public  records  and  read  to  him.  Perhaps  he 
wanted  to  be  put  to  sleep,  and  thought  that  reading  of 
that  kind  would  make  him  drowsy.  Perhaps  he  was 
trying  to  think  out  some  matter,  and  expected  that  the 
records  would  furnish  him  with  hints.  Anyhow,  the  rec- 
ords that  were  read  related  that  a  certain  Jew  had  saved 
the  king's  life,  and  did  not  relate  that  he  had  received  any 
reward  for  it.  The  king  did  not  know  that  this  Jew  was 
the  queen's  cousin. 

The  next  morning  when  Haman  came  to  ask  leave  to 
hang  the  Jew,  the  king  got  in  ahead  of  him  with  the 


The  Book  of  Esther  295 

question,  "What  shall  be  done  unto  the  man  whom  the 
king  delighteth  to  honor?"  Haman  was  sure  that  he  him- 
self must  be  the  man  to  be  honored.  He  and  the  king 
devised  a  scheme  for  a  public  pageant  such  as  no  king 
had  ever  before  made  in  honor  of  a  subject.  Then  the 
king,  to  Haman's  surprise,  commanded  him  instantly  to 
put  into  operation  the  pageant  they  had  devised,  in  honor 
of  the  Jew  who  had  saved  the  king's  life.  This  was  a 
different  thing  from  hanging  the  Jew  on  the  gallows,  but 
Haman  had  the  grit  to  do  as  he  was  commanded.  He, 
the  well  known  favorite  of  the  king,  humbly  attended  the 
Jew  in  his  triumphal  ride,  with  the  proclamation,  ''Thus 
be  it  done  unto  the  man  whom  the  king  delighteth  to 
honor."  But  when  it  was  over  he  hurried  home,  and  there 
gave  vent  to  his  chagrin.  Apparently  he  forgot  his  en- 
gagement to  dine  with  the  king  and  queen,  and  had  to 
be  sent  for. 

The  king  was  not  stupid  when  once  he  really  gave 
thought  to  a  matter.  Before  he  went  to  the  banquet 
that  day  he  probably  knew,  without  having  been  told, 
that  the  Jews  were  the  best  subjects  he  had,  and  that  he 
had  been  a  fool  to  acquiesce  in  their  destruction.  At  the 
banquet  Haman,  craven  that  he  was,  lost  his  presence  of 
mind,  and  contributed  to  his  own  overthrow  and  to  the 
queen's  success.  The  peril  to  the  Jews  was  changed  into 
wonderful  prosperity,  the  queen's  cousin  was  elevated  to 
an  influential  position  in  the  empire,  and  the  greatness  of 
the  empire  was  thereby  enhanced. 

Prominent  in  the  story  is  the  casting  of  "Pur,  that  is, 
the  lot"  (3  :  7;  9  :  24),  and  the  religious  feast  of  Purim 
(9  :  26-32).    The  story  purports  either  to  be  a  historical 


296  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticis^n 

account  of  the  origin  of  that  feast,  or  to  be  in  some  other 
way  characteristically  related  to  the  feast.     We  have  no 

information  as  to  whether  it  was  written 
Purim  on  purpose  to  be  read  at  the  Purim  feast, 

but  at  all  events  it  came  to  be  so  read. 
The  spiritual  note  which  it  strikes  is  one  peculiarly  fit  to 
be  the  dominant  note  on  that  occasion.  So  it  is  important 
to  observe  that  the  feast  of  Purim  is  the  one  group  of 
ancient  Jewish  religious  observances  that  is  extrapenta- 
teuchal.  It  arose  in  the  countries  of  the  exile,  and  made 
no  claims  to  have  originated  with  Moses  or  with  David. 

In  the  matter  of  its  ethical  teachings  the  book  of  Esther 
is  savagely  attacked.     If  you  will  examine  the  attacks, 

however,    you    will    find   that    they    are 

n    \     i.  r^  X.        mainly    based    on    inferences    from    the 
Book  of  Esther  ^ 

book,  and  not  on  teachmgs  that  are  either 

expressed  or  necessarily  implied  in  it.  If  the  spirit  of 
revenge  attributed  in  it  to  the  Jews  were  set  forth  as  a 
matter  of  good  example,  an  example  for  us  all  to  follow, 
that  would  be  objectionable.  It  is  not  so  set  forth.  It  is 
simply  mentioned  as  a  part  of  the  events  of  the  story, 
leaving  the  reader  to  approve  or  to  condemn  as  his  own 
judgment  dictates.  Their  bloodthirstiness  was  wrong  of 
course,  however  the  element  of  self-defense  may  come  in 
to  palliate  it,  and  however  it  might  be  defended  by  paral- 
lel instances  even  in  recent  times. 

The  book  does  not  say  that  the  conduct  of  Esther  in 
seeking  marriage  with  Ahasuerus  was  exemplary.  It 
leaves  that  to  the  judgment  of  the  reader.  Her  conduct 
was  exactly  as  commendable  as  the  conduct  of  other  per- 
sons who  sell  themselves  in  marriage  for  the  sake  of  at- 


The  Book  of  Esther  297 

taining  to  fortunes  or  to  careers  or  to  rank.  Let  us  hope 
that  your  ideals  of  marriage  are  so  fine  that  you  are  com- 
pelled to  condemn  Esther.  She  suffered  bitterly.  But 
at  least  she  was  splendidly  true  to  herself  in  the  situa- 
tions that  arose  after  the  irretrievable  step  had  been 
taken. 

The  book  is  also  attacked  on  the  side  of  its  religious 

omissions.    It  does  not  mention  the  Supreme  Being  under 

any  name.     Even  if  the  attempts  to  find 

,  e»g»ous       sQj^g  name  of  God  cryptically  hidden  in 
Omissions  ^  ^  •' 

some  part  of  the  text  are  regarded  as 

successful,  that  counts  for  very  little.  Further,  there  is 
no  mention  of  prayer  or  of  religious  observances,  except 
as  these  may  be  implied  in  the  fasting  (4  :  16),  no  men- 
tion of  Jerusalem  or  of  the  religious  element  in  the  sepa- 
rateness  of  Israel,  no  mention  of  prophets  or  of  priests. 
Men  hotly  declare  that  the  book  is  a  secular  story,  having 
no  proper  place  in  an  aggregate  of  religious  literature. 

The  charge  is  sustained  provided  we  assume  that  pious 
talk  is  the  same  thing  with  religion.  Nevertheless  the 
book  is  saturated  with  profound  religious  ideas.  What- 
ever may  be  the  significance  of  its  omissions,  its  contents 
are  deeply  religious. 

It  represents  that  all  human  beings  are  so  bound  to- 
gether that  whatever  affects  one  affects  all.  The  queen 
in  the  palace  cannot  escape  from  her  kinship  with  the 
most  obscure  trafficker  on  the  street.  The  despotism  of 
the  conditions  that  dominate  any  age  is  as  absolute  as  was 
that  of  the  Persian  monarchy.  Under  it  some  of  our  race 
are  condemned  to  poverty  and  wretchedness  and  tempta- 
tions such  as  render  virtue  well-nigh  impossible,  and  all 


298  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

suffer  from  spiritual  imperfection.  In  these  conditions 
what  shall  be  the  choice  of  one  like  Esther,  one  who  be- 
longs to  the  fortunate  class  in  society,  one  who,  because 
of  his  good  fortune,  has  ability  to  help  those  who  need 
help?  The  lesson  implied  is  the  same  whether  you  ask 
this  question  concerning  the  spiritual  needs  of  men,  or 
their  physical  needs,  or  their  social  needs.  The  ideas  that 
connect  themselves  with  this  question  are  both  religious 
and  moral,  and  the  book  of  Esther  is  full  of  them.  Men 
of  all  classes  and  conditions  are  in  one  bundle;  each  is 
involved  in  the  fate  of  others ;  it  is  no  more  safe  than  it 
is  kind  for  the  highest  to  neglect  their  duties  to  the  low- 
est. 

If  the  name  of  Deity  is  absent  from  the  book  of 
Esther,  the  reality  is  not  absent.  No  men  in  history  ever 
had  more  occasion  than  the  Jews  in  exile  to  raise  the 
cry  which  Mr  Lowell  has  formulated  in  his  poem,  "The 
Present  Crisis" : 

"Truth  forever  on  the  scaffold, 
Wrong  forever  on  the  throne." 

The  conditions  in  which  they  lived  were  such  that  at  any 
time  a  Haman  might  arise  and  plot  their  extermination. 
They  had  need  of  the  consoHng  truth  that — 

".  ,  .  Behind  the  dim  unknown 
Standeth  God  within  the  shadow, 
Keeping  watch  above  his  own." 

In  the  book  of  Esther  if  God  is  in  the  shadow  and  invis- 
ible, he  is  none  the  less  keeping  watch. 

In  our  modern  religious  phraseology  no  words  are 
more  familiar  than  the  maxim  that  "one  with  God  is  a 


The  Book  of  Esther  299 

majority,"  or  than  Matthew  Arnold's  saying  in  regard  to 
"an  unseen  power,  not  ourselves,  that  makes  for  right- 
eousness." The  story  in  Esther,  with  that  of  Jonah  and 
some  of  those  in  Daniel,  are  stories  in  which  one  or  a 
few  Israelites  come  into  conflict  with  the  whole 
power  of  Assyria  or  Babylonia  or  Persia,  as  the  case 
may  be,  with  only  Jehovah  to  help  them,  and  come  off 
victorious.  In  Esther  the  moral  is  accentuated  by  the 
fact  that  the  one  Israelite  is  a  woman  whose  record  has 
been  in  part  marked  by  vanity  and  selfishness  and  other 
weaknesses.  In  spite  of  my  badness  I  am  in  the  major- 
ity if  God  is  with  me.  And  the  story  of  Esther  is  a 
story  of  God's  purpose  with  Israel  and  the  nations,  illus- 
trating the  truth  that  in  all  events,  including  all  human 
efforts  great  or  little,  fine  or  mean,  there  operates  the 
unseen  power  that  makes  for  righteousness.  The  avoid- 
ing of  religious  terminology  has  the  fine  effect  of  making 
the  presentation  of  these  great  truths  unusual  and  fresh, 
and  such  as  to  appeal  even  to  a  mind  of  agnostic 
tendencies. 

These  are  the  great  things  in  the  book  of  Esther — • 

the  things  that  chiefly  appeal  to  a  serious  and  intelligent 

reader.     Critics  have  not   failed  to  ap- 

.  ^t  ^^1  *"  preciate  this,  but  many  have  failed  suf- 
m  the  Book  \,   .       .  ,       .  , 

ficiently  to  emphasize  the  great  thmgs. 

They  have  called  attention  to  them  partially  and  inci- 
dentally, but  have  not  used  them  as  the  key  to  the 
critical  questions  that  arise.  For  example  a  distin- 
guished scholar  gives  as  an  explanation  of  the  scantiness 
of  "specifically  religious  phraseology"  that  this  "is  not  a 
fault  in  a  book  read  at  a  joyous  feast."     As  if  all  the 


300  Reasojiable  Biblical  Criticism 

Jewish  religious  feasts  were  not  joyous!  As  if  religion 
were  not  conceived  of  as  the  most  joyous  thing  in  them! 

In  addition  to  these  lofty  truths,  the  book  is  crowded 
with  minor  lessons — lessons  so  important  that  in  some 
other  connection  they  might  well  stand  at  the  front; 
lessons,  for  example,  concerning  the  influence  of  women 
over  men;  the  influence  of  women  in  public  affairs,  and 
their  responsibility  therefor;  dress  as  a  factor  in  influ- 
ence; the  value  of  a  sweet  disposition  and  of  engaging 
manners ;  the  importance  of  adaptation  and  of  tact  in  our 
efforts  to  accomplish  things;  the  wisdom  of  being  loyal 
to  a  tried  adviser ;  the  hollowness  of  friendships  that  are 
based  on  mere  interest — such  as  that  of  the  friends  who 
advise  Haman,.to  make  the  gallows  for  Mordecai,  and 
then,  when  the  tide  turns,  hasten  to  tell  the  king  about 
the  gallows. 

From  very  early  times  the  book  of  Esther  has  been 

the    victim    of    misapprehension     and    misinformation. 

There   is   no   room   for   doubt   that   the 

^^^      ,       .         Persian  kinsf  who  figures  in  the  book  is 
Misapprehensions     ^  ^        .  r  r 

Xerxes.     But  if  you  turn  to  a  reference 

Bible  with  the  Ussher  chronology  you  will  find  that  the 
dates  given  in  the  margin  are  those  of  the  reign  of  Darius 
Hystaspis.  Ussher  thought  that  the  marriage  of  Esther 
was  nearly  contemporaneous  with  the  completing  of  the 
Zerubbabel  temple.  Copies  of  the  Greek  translation  call 
this  king  Artaxerxes,  instead  of  Ahasuerus,  and,  like 
our  English  copies,  place  Esther  last  among  the  his- 
torical books.  Dr.  Prideaux  accepted  this  and  made  the 
marriage  of  Esther  synchronous  with  the  mission  of 
Ezra.     Josephus  calls  the  king  Artaxerxes,  but  counts 


The  Book  of  Esther  301 

the  events  of  Esther  as  later  than  those  of  Ezra  and  Nehe- 
miah,  probably  inferring  this  from  the  order  of  the  books 
in  his  Greek  copy.  So  he  attributes  the  commissions  of 
Ezra  and  Nehemiah  to  Xerxes.  He  tells  us  what  Ne- 
hemiah  did  in  the  twenty-fifth  and  twenty-eighth  years 
of  Xerxes,  quite  unmindful  of  the  fact  that  Xerxes 
reigned  only  twenty-one  years.  His  translator,  Whis- 
ton,  agrees  with  him,  and  is  supercilious  in  his  expres- 
sions concerning  the  Hebrew  text  of  Esther.  The 
opinions  of  Ussher  and  Josephus  on  these  points  are  now 
counted  as  obsolete  and  eccentric.  It  is  rather  fashion- 
able, however,  to  speak  of  the  Greek  account  as  in  some 
respects  preferable  to  the  Hebrew,  but  when  one  does 
this  it  is  presumptive  evidence  that  he  has  not  read  the 
account  in  the  Greek  form,  and  does  not  know  what  he 
is  talking  about.  But  our  interpretations  of  Esther  still 
suffer  from  this  atmosphere  of  traditional  misinforma- 
tion. 

Our  ideas  of  Esther  have  been  affected  by  the  internal 
changes  that  have  been  made,  as  well  as  by  the  traditions 

that  have  been  circulated.  We  have 
Greek  Additions  r.  ^,  ,  .,,         jj*^- 

,  some  of  these  changes  m  the  additions  to 

Esther  which  appear  in  our  Apocrypha. 
Others  appear  as  variants  in  the  text.  Others  are  alluded 
to  in  ancient  books  in  passages  that  mention  the  con- 
tents of  Esther.  For  example,  Origen  has  an  allusion 
in  which  demons  figure  prominently.  The  story-tinker 
began  early  to  get  in  his  work  on  Esther.  The  charm- 
ing simplicity  of  the  narrative  did  not  appeal  to  the 
translators  and  commentators  who  made  the  Greek  ver- 
sion ;  they  thought  the  story  ought  to  have  more  color. 


302  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

Its  moral  code  seemed  to  them  defective,  and  they  were 
offended  by  its  lack  of  religiousness ;  and  so  in  the  addi- 
tions they  made  they  undertook  to  supply  these  defi- 
ciencies. 

The  story  in  the  Hebrew  permits  us  to  think  that 
Esther  loved  her  magnificent  husband,  and  that  he  loved 
and  respected  her,  and  was  amenable  to  just  and  whole- 
some influences  coming  from  her.  The  additions  rep- 
resent her  as  loathing  him  because  he  was  not  a  Jew. 
This  gives  to  the  connection  a  m.alodorous  character 
which  does  not  really  belong  to  it.  The  Hebrew  story 
leaves  us  free  to  think  that  Xerxes  was  man  enough  to 
be  pleased  with  the  audacity  of  his  beautiful  wife  when 
she  dared  to  come  unbidden  before  him.  The  additions 
give  an  embroidered  account  of  her  being  so  overcome 
that  she  fainted  away,  making  him  very  anxious  about 
her.  And  in  these  apocrypha  the  reader  will  find  prayers, 
and  the  name  of  God,  and  plenty  of  religious  words,  some 
of  them  well  spoken,  but  he  will  find  far  less  of  a  deep 
religious  spirit  than  in  the  book  as  it  stands  in  the  He- 
brew. 

The  humor  in  the  book  of  Esther  is  prominent  among 

its   literary  characteristics.     The   story  is  tremendously 

serious,   in   places   tragic,   but   it   is   not 

1  erary   ^  blind  to  the  ludicrous  aspects  of  life.    Its 

Characteristics 

humor  is  not  of  the  type  which  expresses 

itself  in  uproarious  external  laughter;  it  is  rather  of  the 
kind  in  which  you  hold  your  face  straight,  while  you  are 
convulsed  internally.  Among  the  funniest  things  in  the 
world  are  the  big-headed  estimates  which  some  men  form 
concerning  women.     Read  the  account  of  the  king  and 


The  Book  of  Esther  303 

his  sophomoric  statesmen  in  consultation  concerning 
Vashti  (i  :  13-22).  Read  it  slowly,  and  taste  it.  It  is 
inimitable.  Or  read  appreciatively  the  sketch  of  the  inci- 
dent when  Haman  goes  to  the  king  expecting  to  ask  leave 
to  hang  Mordecai,  and  finds  one  more  boost  for  his 
vanity  in  imagining  himself  to  be  the  man  whom  the 
king  delighteth  to  honor,  and  is  then  sent  through  the 
streets  in  attendance  on  Mordecai,  and  goes  home  and 
tells  his  wife. 

The  book  presents  few  marks  of  having  been  drawn 
from  sources,  though  verses  29-32  of  the  ninth  chapter 
are  mainly  a  briefer  duplicate  of  verses  20-28.  The  book 
is  more  full  of  Persian  marks  than  any  other  Old  Testa- 
ment book.  For  details  see  Driver's  Introduction  or 
other  books  of  reference.  The  Hebrew  has  more  vivacity 
and  color  than  that  of  Nehemiah  and  Ezra,  and  is  a 
shade  later  in  its  syntax.  The  differences  are  such  as 
may  be  accounted  for  by  the  differences  in  the  subject, 
and  by  the  personality  of  the  author. 

The  phraseology  of  the  first  verse  seems  to  imply  that 
the  reign  of  Xerxes  was  past,  and  was  a  matter  of  his- 
tory when  the  writer  wrote.  Some  one 
Date  says  that  the  book  of  Esther  was  writ- 

ten late  enough  so  that  the  reign  of 
Xerxes  had  already  become  enveloped  in  a  mist  of  im- 
agination. In  any  sense  in  which  this  statement  is  true, 
three  or  four  decades  would  be  sufificient  to  meet  these 
conditions.  In  the  Hebrew  bibles  it  is  grouped  with 
Daniel,  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  Chronicles,  as  one  of  the  latest 
books.  Its  date  is  probably  before  B.  C.  400.  It  is  en- 
tirely absurd  to  think  of  it  as  having  been  written  after 


304  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

the  Persian  domination  in  Jewish  affairs  was  displaced 
by  the  Greek. 

There  were  discussions  concerning  the  canonicity  of 
Esther  among  the  Jews  of  the  first  and  second  centuries 
A.  D.,  and  the  Christians  of  those  and 
f^°th  ^^^  centuries  immediately  following.     It 

is  misrepresentation  to  say  that  the 
question  was  raised  whether  Esther  should  be  admitted 
to  the  aggregate  known  as  the  Holy  Scriptures.  The 
discussion  invariably  assumed  that  the  book  was  already 
recognized  as  scriptural;  the  question  was  whether  this 
verdict  ought  to  be  reversed,  and  this  question  was  uni- 
formly decided  in  the  negative.  The  reason  for  raising 
the  question  was  not  that  Esther  was  then  an  unknown 
or  an  unprized  book.  Few  books  of  the  Old  Testament 
were  in  those  centuries  as  much  used  or  as  much  admired. 
But  Esther  was  the  book  of  the  feast  of  Purim,  and 
Purim  was  not  a  Jerusalem  feast.  Purim  and  its  book 
were  in  a  class  by  themselves. 

The  important  truths  in  the  book  of  Esther  are  not 

those  which  concern  historical  events,  but  those  which 

concern  human  living.     This  is  the  case 

Truthfulness  if  the  book  is  history,  and  it  is  equally 
the  case  if  the  book  is  not  history.  The 
events  are  of  small  account  compared  with  the  great 
ideas  and  lessons  already  mentioned  in  this  chapter. 
Beyond  dispute  the  book  was  intended  as  a  presentation 
of  these  ideas  and  lessons.  And  in  this  character  there 
can  be  no  question  of  its  splendid  truthfulness. 

Is  the  book  historical  as  well  as  true?  We  have  no  in- 
formation as  to  whether  the  generation  among  whom  it 


The  Book  of  Esther  305 

was  published  regarded  it  as  history,  but  most  of  the 
generations  since  have  so  regarded  it.  Xerxes  is  a  well- 
known  historical  character.  Mordecai 
Historicity  may  or  may  not  be  the  Jewish  leader 
whose  name  is  in  a  list  with  those  of 
Zerubbabel  and  Nehemiah  (Ezra  2:2;  Neh.  7  '.  7). 
The  character  of  Xerxes  is  correctly  drawn,  both  in 
respect  to  his  genuine  greatness  and  his  foibles.  It  is 
interesting  to  note  that  in  his  third  year,  when  he  is 
raising  the  biggest  of  all  armies  in  order  to  invade 
Greece,  he  is  very  lofty  in  dealing  with  Vashti;  but  he 
misses  Vashti  dreadfully  in  his  sixth  year,  when  he  has 
come  back  defeated  from  Greece  (i  :  3)2:  i  ff ;  2  :  12, 
16).  The  events  of  the  story  are  so  dated  as  to  give 
them  a  definite  position  among  the  events  of  Jevv^ish 
history  (3  :  7,  etc.),  the  twelfth  year  of  Xerxes  being 
64  years  after  Zerubbabel  came  to  Jerusalem,  42  years 
after  he  completed  the  temple,  16  years  before  the  com- 
ing of  Ezra.  In  the  twelfth  year  of  Xerxes  Ezra  was 
probably  in  Babylonia,  pursuing  the  studies  which  after- 
ward made  him  famous  as  the  ready  scribe  of  the  law 
of  Jehovah.  There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  the  correct- 
ness of  the  details  concerning  governmental  administra- 
tion, or  concerning  the  situation  of  the  Jews,  scattered  in 
all  parts  of  the  empire.  Those  in  Palestine  were  at  that 
date  only  an  unimportant  part  of  the  Jewish  world. 
They  would  have  perished  with  the  others  if  Haman's 
plans  had  succeeded.  At  these  and  other  points  the  story 
is  perfect  in  verisimilitude.  If  it  is  fiction  it  is  at  least 
correctly  set  against  a  historical  background. 

A    record    may    be    historical    in    the    sense    that    the 


3o6  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

recorded  events  actually  occurred,  or  in  the  different 
sense  that  it  is  a  correct  presentation  of  the  times  of 
which  it  treats,  or  in  both  these  senses.  Historicity  in 
the  second  of  these  meanings  is  often  more  important 
than  in  the  first.  As  we  have  seen,  the  book  of  Esther 
presents  a  historical  situation  vividly  and  truly.  This  is 
its  principal  historical  value.  Is  it  also  historical  in  the 
sense  that  the  events  of  the  story  actually  occurred? 

The   Jewish    secondary   sacred   literature   abounds   in 
religious  stories  which  have  been  built  up  around  the 

names   of   historical   persons.      For   ex- 
.  ,  ample,  the  Apochryphal  books  of  Judith, 

I  Esdras,  3  Maccabees,  contain  stories 
of  this  kind.  The  story  of  the  debate  on  Wine  and 
the  King  and  Women  and  Truth  (i  Esd.  3-4)  is  par- 
ticularly fine.  There  is  no  doubt  of  the  superiority  of 
the  Esther  story  to  these  others — its  superiority  both 
in  point  of  verisimilitude  and  in  the  greatness  of  the 
truths  it  sets  forth.  But  is  it,  in  its  literary  character, 
a  story  of  the  same  kind?  May  it  be  the  prototype 
from  which  the  others  were  modeled? 

In  the  case  of  Esther  no  question  of  miracle  arises, 
and   this    fact    renders   the   case   less   complicated   than 

those  of  Jonah  or  of  the  Daniel  stories. 
p     . .   ^        But  one  might  supposably  say  that  the 

imaginative  phraseology  of  this  narra- 
tive suggests  to  him  that  the  narrative  itself  is  imag- 
inary ;  that  in  view  of  the  abundant  information  we  have 
concerning  the  times  of  Xerxes  we  might  expect,  in  case 
the  Esther  events  really  occurred,  to  find  some  mention 
of  them  in  other  writings  that  deal  with  those  times; 


The  Book  of  Esther  307 

that  while  the  numerals  enable  us  to  figure  out  other 
events  contemporaneous  with  the  events  of  Esther,  the 
story  itself  betrays  no  consciousness  of  being  connected 
with  these  other  events,  but  presents  its  events  in  isola- 
tion, as  if  they  belonged  to  a  different  world  from  the 
others.  In  view  of  these  and  like  impressions  one  might 
supposably  think  of  the  book  as  didactic  fiction,  in- 
vented for  the  purpose  of  presenting  the  great  truths, 
historically  valuable  not  for  the  events  narrated,  but 
for  the  picture  it  gives  of  the  times ;  in  short,  that  Esther 
is  a  parable,  true  in  the  sense  in  which  it  was  intended 
to  be  understood.  No  person  counts  the  parables  of 
Jesus  as  untruthful.  The  Esther  parable,  if  it  is  a 
parable,  is  on  the  same  footing,  except  that  it  is  set 
against  the  background  of  a  definite  historical  situation. 

Strange  to  say,  this  view  is  not  generally  presented, 

save  in  ways  that  are  hazy  and  uncertain,  by  the  scholars 

who  deny  the  proper  historicity  of  Es- 

-^  ^  ther.     Many  of  their  views  seem  to  be 

of  the  nature  of  compromises  between 
the  idea  that  the  book  is  correct  history,  and  the  idea 
that  it  is  falsehood.  In  the  new  Schafif-Herzog  En- 
cyclopedia the  distinguished  scholar,  Conrad  von  Orelli, 
cites  the  opinions  of  fifteen  or  more  scholars.  The 
opinions  cited  fall  into  three  classes :  first,  that  the  story 
is  "pure  fiction" ;  second,  that  it  is  an  elaboration  of  a 
Persian  or  Babylonian  folktale ;  third,  that  it  has  a  "his- 
torical kernel."  This  last  Dr.  von  Orelli  seems  to 
accept,  regarding  it  as  the  majority  opinion. 

If  one  thinks  of  Esther  as  parable  it  is  of  no  great 
consequence  whether  it  is  pure  fiction  or  has  a  historical 


J 


08  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 


kernel.  It  belittles  the  book  to  call  it  pure  fiction,  if 
you  mean  thereby  a  yarn  spun  for  entertainment,  or  any- 
thing less  than  a  true  parable.  It  belittles  it  to  call  it  a 
folktale,  or  an  outgrowth  from  folktales.  It  is  worse 
than  either  to  speak  of  it  as  having  a  historical  nucleus, 
if  that  means  that  the  book  itself  is  an  incrustation  of 
falsehoods  formed  upon  that  nucleus. 

Some  writers  support  these  hazy  theories  by  bad  de- 
tails.    ''According  to  Esther  2  :  6-7,  Esther  and  Mor- 

decai  had  been  deported  with  Jehoia- 
Bad  Theories  and  ^^^^,,  ^j^j^  j^  selected  as  a  statement 
Worse  Details 

too  absurd  to  be  true,   the  deportation 

of  Jehoiachin  having  occurred  about  120  years  before 
the  time  assigned  for  the  marriage  of  Esther.  Turn  to 
the  passage  and  observe  that  what  it  really  says  is  that 
Mordecai's  greatgrandfather  was  deported  with  Jehoi- 
achin. 

It  is  said  in  Esther  that  "the  city  of  Shushan  was  per- 
plexed" when  Haman's  decree  was  published,  and  that 
it  "shouted  and  was  glad"  when  Mordecai  came  to  power. 
A  recent  writer  regards  these  statements  as  accretions 
upon  the  historical  nucleus.  He  says  that  they  "are  too 
strong  to  be  true."  He  would  not  think  so  if  a  crisis 
one-tenth  part  as  serious  arose  in  the  city  where  he  lives. 
Surely  it  is  not  extravagant  to  say  that  the  city  "was 
perplexed"  when  the  government  had  authorized  the 
murder  of  a  large  group  of  business  men  and  their 
families,  nor  to  say  that  the  city  shouted  for  gladness 
when  the  danger  was  averted. 

"Haman  having  had  a  dispute  with  .  .  .  Mordecai 
because  the  latter  would  not  bow  down  to  him."     This 


The  Book  of  Esther  309 

statement  belittles  the  high  and  mighty  Haman.  The 
idea  in  Esther  is  that  Haman  "thought  scorn"  of  getting 
into  an  altercation  with  so  plebeian  a  person  as  Mordecai. 
There  is  a  style  of  criticism  which  gets  together  de- 
tails like  these,  puts  forced  meanings  upon  them,  and 
then  proceeds  to  account  for  them  as  untrustworthy 
accretions.  ''These  narratives  were  certainly  orally  trans- 
mitted with  delight,  and  moreover  passed  through  a 
noteworthy  literary  redaction.  In  this  way  inaccuracies 
and  exaggerations  might  easily  creep  in." 

The  author  from  whose  work  these  citations  have 
been  made  says  that  "the  narrative  is  harmonious,  and 
True  Theory  written  with  dramatic  skill."  He  speaks 
Concerning  in  high  terms  of  its  ethical  and  religious 
Esther  seriousness.     He  shows  appreciation  of 

its  great  ideas.  Can  he  not  see  that  the  details  ought  to 
be  interpreted  in  the  light  of  the  serious  purpose  and  the 
great  truths?  Can  he  not  see  that,  so  interpreted,  the 
instances  which  he  cites  are  either  not  to  the  point,  or 
are  too  trifling  to  count?  The  book  is.  the  work  of  one 
gifted  author,  and  not  a  mere  accretion  of  chance  ma- 
terials taken  from  popular  stories.  It  is  not  a  legendary 
outgrowth,  but  a  record  with  a  purpose.  If  not  historical 
it  is  genuine  religious  parable. 


CHAPTER  XXII 

THE  BOOKS  OF  EZRA,    NEHEMIAH,  AND   CHRONICLES 

These  books  a  single  work,  or  series.  Closing  books  of  the  Old 
Testament.  Twenty-four  books  or  thirty-nine?  Different 
order  in  the  translations.  Contents  of  Ezra-Nehemiah- 
Chronicles :  narrative  of  Zerubbabel,  of  Ezra,  of  Nehemiah, 
of  the  whole  past  history.  Sources  and  authorship :  Ezra 
in  the  first  or  the  third  person.  Nehemiah  in  the  first  or 
the  third  person.  Biblical  sources  for  Chronicles.  Extra- 
biblical  sources.  The  purpose  of  the  books.  Nehemiah's 
library.  Historicity.  That  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah.  That 
of  Chronicles :  inadvertences,  genealogical  matters,  detach- 
able stories,  the  narrative  as  a  whole.  The  final  processes 
in  making  the  Old  Testament  aggregate.  Ezra  and  the 
scribes.  No  information  as  to  canon-making.  The  different 
kinds  of  work  done.  Earlier  aggregations.  Processes  of 
growth.     After  400  B.  C.     The  New  Testament. 

These  three  books,  in  this  order,  stand  at  the  close  of 

the  Hebrew  bibles.    The  Jewish  tradition  is  to  the  effect 

that  *'the  men  of  the  Great  Synagogue 

n-  \    ^  ^\t»     1     wrote  Ezekiel,  and  the  Twelve,  and  Dan- 
Testament  Books 

iel,  and  the  roll  of  Esther  ;  that  Ezra 
wrote  his  book  and  the  genealogy  of  Chronicles  until  him- 
self." The  commenting  tradition  asks,  *'And  who  did 
the  completing?"  The  answer  is,  "Nehemiah,  the  son 
of  Hacaliah."  This  tradition  agrees  with  the  Hebrew 
bibles  in  placing  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  and  Chronicles 
latest  among  the  books. 

The  consensus  of  opinion  to  the  same  effect  is  nearly 
universal.     There  are  many  who  think  of   Esther  and 
310 


Ezra^   Nehemiah^  and  Chronicles         311 

Daniel  and  some  of  the  Psalms  as  written  later  than 
Chronicles,  but  even  they  think  of  the  proper  Old  Testa- 
ment aggregate  as  closing  with  Chronicles,  and  regard 
these  other  writings  as  supplementary.  And  no  one  doubts 
that  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  and  Chronicles  are  a  single 
piece  of  composition,  or  perhaps,  rather,  a  series  of  writ- 
ings, by  one  author  or  school  of  authors. 

Certain  important  considerations  concerning  the  date 
of  these  writings  have  been  presented  in  Chapter  XVIII. 
Our  further  discussion  of  them  connects  itself  with  their 
character  as  the  closing  part  of  the  Old  Testament. 

The    Hebrew    bibles    follow    an    old    tradition    which 

counts  the  Old  Testament  as  consisting  of  24  books,  or 

of  22  books,,  the  twelve  minor  prophets 

Certain  Details  being  counted  as  one  book,  and  Ezra 
and  Nehemiah  as  one  book,  and  the 
double  books  of  Samuel  and  Kings  and  Chronicles  each 
as  one  book.  It  is  the  fashion  to  infer  that  some  of  these 
24  books  have  been  cut  up  into  smaller  books,  thus  in- 
creasing the  number  to  39.  There  is  no  ground  for  this 
inference.  The  separate  existence  of  the  39  books  can 
be  traced  back  as  far  as  we  can  at  all  trace  the  matter. 
The  present  Hebrew  bibles  clearly  assume  that  the  num- 
ber of  the  books  is  for  some  purposes  39,  and  for  other 
purposes  24;  and  this  has  been  the  usage  from  the 
earliest  times  concerning  which  we  have  information. 

Most  of  the  translations,  following  the  lead  of  early 
Greek  copies,  place  the  books  in  a  different  order  from 
that  in  the  Hebrew  Bibles.  They  arrange  the  narrative 
books  by  themselves,  and  place  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  and 
Esther  after  Chronicles,  as  dealing  with  later  events. 


312  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

Read  these  books,  in  the  order  in  which  the  Hebrew 
bibles  place  them,  with  sufficient  care  to  have  a  good 
idea  of  their  contents.  First  comes  the 
these  Books  ^^^ord  of  the  migration  under  Zerub- 
babel,  and  the  building  of  the  temple, 
B.  C.  538-515  (Ezra  1-6).  Into  this  record  is  inserted 
a  certain  Hst  of  immigrants,  duplicated  with  variations 
in  Nehemiah  and  in  i  Esdras  (Ezra  2;  Neh.  7  :  5-73; 
I  Esd.  5  :  4-46).  Apparently  it  includes  men  of  later 
migrations,  as  well  as  those  who  came  with  Zerubbabel. 
Into  the  record  is  also  inserted  an  Aramaic  document 
(4  :  8-6  :  18),  which  purports  to  consist  of  excerpts 
from  state  papers,  connected  by  a  few  sentences  of  nar- 
rative. There  are  six  of  these  excerpts  in  the  Hebrew 
or  the  Aramaic  of  these  six  chapters  (i  :  2-4;  4  :  7-16; 
4  :  17-22;  5  :  6-17;  6  :   1-12 ;  6  :  2-5). 

Second,  we  find  the  record,  covering  a  year  and  a  day, 
of  the  migration  under  Ezra,  B.  C.  458-457  (Ezra  7-10). 
This  includes  one  official  document  in  Aramaic  (7  :  12- 
26).  Eighty  years  had  elapsed  since  the  beginning  of 
the  return  from  exile,  and  thus  far  the  return  had  proved 
a  comparative  failure.  Ezra  expected  to  give  it  new  life 
by  improving  the  temple  service  and  by  enforcing  the 
ancient  laws  of  Israel,  especially  those  against  intermar- 
riage with  foreigners. 

Third,  we  find  the  narrative  concerning  Nehemiah. 
It  implies  that  Ezra  has  not  been  successful.  Nehemiah, 
using  business  methods,  changes  the  failure  into  success, 
while  Ezra  still  remains  at  the  front.  First,  we  have  a 
record  of  the  first  administration  of  Nehemiah,  B.  C. 
445-433   (Neh.  i-ii  :  2;  5  :  14;  13  :  6),  all  but  a  few 


Ezra,  N'ehemia/iy  and  Chronicles         313 

sentences  being  devoted  to  the  first  year.  Second,  we 
have  a  genealogical  note  (11  :  3-12  :  26),  interposed 
between  the  two  parts  of  the  narrative.  Third,  we  have 
the  second  part  of  the  narrative.  It  consists  of  just  a 
few  items  concerning  the  second  administration  of  Nehe- 
miah  (12  :  27-13  :  31),  which  began  at  an  unknown 
date  after  B.  C.  433,  and  lasted  many  years. 

Fourth,  in  the  two  books  of  Chronicles  the  record 
goes  back  to  the  beginning,  and  makes  a  review  of  the 
entire  history  up  to  the  point  of  time  where  the  record 
itself  began.  First,  it  groups  together  a  quantity  of 
fragments  of  genealogies,  with  incidents  interspersed  (i 
Chron.  1-9).  The  closing  chapter  of  this  section  is  in 
part  a  duplicate  of  the  genealogical  note  in  Nehemiah 
(Neh.  II  :  3-12  :  26),  and  brings  matters  up  to  the  same 
date  with  that  note.  Second,  the  record  reviews  the 
history  of  David,  beginning  with  the  battle  in  which  the 
death  of  Saul  and  his  heirs  opened  the  way  for  David 
to  become  king  (i  Chron.  10-29).  Third,  it  reviews  the 
history  of  the  dynasty  of  David — Solomon  and  his  suc- 
cessors (2  Chron.),  and  closes  (2  Chron.  36  :  22-23), 
by  repeating  the  words  with  which  Ezra  begins.  By 
means  of  this  repetition  the  author  of  the  record  an- 
nounces that  he  has  finished  his  work,  having  arrived 
again  at  the  point  whence  he  started. 

Now  observe  certain  phenomena  bear- 

.  ,,      , .  ingf  on  the  questions  of  the  sources  and 

Authorship  °  ^,  ..... 

the  authorship  of  this  series  of  writmgs. 

Distinguish  between  the  narrative  proper,  the  inserted 
documents  {e.  g.  Neh.  7  :  6-73;  11  :  3-12  :  26),  and 
the  quoted  passages   {e.  g.  Neh.  9  :  5b-38).      Then  in 


314  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

one  section  of  the  narrative  (Ezra  7  :  27-9  :  15)  Ezra  is 
represented  as  speaking  in  the  first  person.  Except  in 
this  section  he  is  spoken  of  in  the  third  person. 

The  larger  part  of  the  narrative  in  Nehemiah  con- 
sists of  sections  in  which  Nehemiah  is  the  speaker  (1-7: 
5;  12  :  27-13  :  31).  The  use  of  the  third  person  in 
giving  a  date  (12  :  47)  is  not  inconsistent  with  this,  that 
being  such  an  expression  as  Nehemiah  himself  might 
naturally  use.  The  remaining  narrative  section  (Neh. 
8- 1 1  :  2)  begins  in  the  third  person,  and  even  mentions 
Nehemiah  in  the  third  person  (8  :  9,  10;  10  :  i).  But 
it  makes  a  transition  to  the  "we"  in  the  quoted  passage 
(9  :  9  fif),  and  from  that  to  "we"  in  the  narrative  (lO  : 
30,  31,  32  f¥).  So  it  would  not  be  misrepresentation  to 
say  that  in  the  main  narrative  of  the  book  Nehemiah  is 
the  speaker  throughout. 

The  first  nine  chapters  of  Chronicles  draw  largely  on 
the  Old  Testament  books,  beginning  with  Genesis,  both 
for  facts  and  for  phraseology,  but  they  also  draw  upon 
other  sources.  The  tenth  chapter  of  i  Chronicles  is  a 
duplicate,  with  changes,  of  the  thirty-first  chapter  of  i 
Samuel.  From  that  point  to  the  close  the  books  of 
Chronicles  consist  of  passages  copied  from  the  books  of 
Samuel  and  Kings,  with  slight  abridgments  and  other 
changes,  and  with  the  addition  of  other  passages.  The 
passages  taken  from  Samuel  and  Kings  are  those  which 
contain  the  history  of  Judah.  The  history  of  northern 
Israel  is  omitted,  and  so  are  most  of  the  personal  stories. 
The  added  matters  include  small  incidents,  interesting 
items,  messages  of  prophets  who  are  not  mentioned  in 
Kings,  genealogical  and  other  details,  and,  in  particular, 


Ezra,  NeJiemiah,  and  Chronicles         315 

information  concerning  the  preparations  for  the  temple, 
and  concerning  the  temple  worship  at  different  periods, 
Including  many  priestly  and  ceremonial  matters.  The 
Hebrew  of  these  added  passages  is  of  a  later  type  than 
that  of  the  passages  copied  from  Samuel  and  Kings,  and 
has  some  Persian  marks. 

Besides  their  copying  from  the  narrative  books  and 
the  Psalms,  the  books  of  Chronicles  contain  several 
dozen  references  to  literary  sources,  a  large  proportion 
of  which  are  sources  not  preserved  in  our  existing  Bibles 
— many  references  to  several  different  books  of  Kings; 
references  to  writings  by  Samuel,  Nathan,  Gad,  Ahijah, 
Jedo,  Shemaiah,  Iddo,  Jehu,  Isaiah;  liturgical  writings  of 
David,  Gad,  Nathan,  Asaph,  Pieman,  Jeduthun ;  and  other 
writings.     Take  a  concordance,  and  look  them  up. 

In  fine,  it  seems  clear  that  the  man  or  men  who  wrote 
the  books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  and  Chronicles  had 
a  library  at  command ;  that  they  pos- 
ihese^  \  sessed  most  or  all  of  our  Old  Testament 
writings,  with  many  others ;  that  it 
seemed  to  them  that  the  information  given  in  the  sacred 
books  then  existing  was  not  sufficiently  full  in  regard 
to  certain  matters ;  that  they  wrote  for  the  purpose  of 
preserving  facts  that  might  otherwise  be  lost,  of  sup- 
plying the  information  that  was  lacking,  of  making  the 
record  complete  up  to  date.  The  Greek  translators  did 
not  miss  the  mark  when  they  titled  the  books  of  Chron- 
icles as  the  books  "Of  the  Things  that  Had  Been 
Omitted." 

Observe  that  the  extrabiblical  literature  mentioned  or 
quoted  in  this  work  consists  mainly  of  writings  of  four 


3i6  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

classes :  books  of  kings,  of  prophets,  of  David  and  his 

associates,  and  the  state  papers  (mostly  letters  to  or  from 

the  Persian  kings)  quoted  or  referred  to 

. ..  in    Ezra,    and    Nehemiah.      There    is    a 

Library  ^  .      ' 

tradition  to  the  effect  that  Nehemiah 
gathered  (and  by  indubitable  inference,  that  he  used)  just 
such  a  library  (2  Mac.  2  :   13)  : 

"And  the  same  things  were  related  both  in  the  public 
archives  and  in  the  records  of  Nehemiah ;  and  how  he, 
founding  a  library,  gathered  together  the  books  about 
the  kings  and  prophets,  and  the  hooks  of  David,  and 
letters  of  kings  about  sacred  gifts." 

Scholars  have  cited  this  passage,  not  successfully,  as 
an  account  of  the  making  of  the  canon  of  some  part  of 
the  Old  Testament.  It  stands  in  a  context  in  which  are 
matters  that  appear  fabulous  to  most  readers.  But  its 
interfitting  with  the  phenomena  of  Ezra-Nehemiah- 
Chronicles  is  beyond  question.  The  references  in  this 
work  imply  Nehemiah's  library,  and  the  description  of 
Nehemiah's  library  exactly  fits  the  references.  The  cor- 
respondences can  be  accounted  for  only  by  regard- 
ing the  library  as  a  historical  fact,  and  the  use  made  of 
it  in  the  work  of  the  Chronicler  as  also  a  historical 
fact. 

The  books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  say  that  the  cere- 
monial laws  of  the  pentateuch  were  in  full  operation 
eighty  years  before  Ezra,  and  testify 
Historicity  that  these  laws  came  from  Moses  {e.  g. 
Ezra  3,  but  also  all  parts  of  these 
books).  Further,  they  testify  in  detail  to  the  effect  that 
the    temple    service,    including   its    music    and    song,    its 


Ezra,  Nehe^niah,  and  Chronicles         317 

gatekeepers  and  Nethinim,  originated  with  David  and 
his  advisers  (Ezra  2  :  41,  42,  65,  70;  3  :  10;  7  '.  7 ', 
8  :  20;  Neh.  10  :  28;  11  :  17,  22;  12  :  24,  27,  35,  36, 
45,  46;  13  :  5,  etc.).  The  criticism  which  denies  these 
facts  is  compelled  to  deny  also  the  historicity  of  these 
books  from  beginning  to  end.  There  is  no  reasonable- 
ness in  such  denial.  The  books  bear  the  marks  of  being 
true  to  fact  throughout. 

It  is  fashionable  to  charge  the  books  of  Chronicles,  be- 
yond all  the  other  books  of  the  Bible,  with  being  untrue 
to  fact.  In  dealing  with  this  charge  there  is  need  of  dis- 
crimination.    See  Chapter  II  of  this  volume. 

The  text  in  Chronicles  is  not  in  as  good  shape  as  that 
in  most  parts  of  the  Old  Testament.  There  are  some 
errors  of  inadvertence.  For  example,  compare  2  Chron- 
icles 22  :  2  or  36  :  9,  with  the  parallel  places  in  Kings. 
These  errors,  however,  are  not  so  numerous  or  so  im- 
portant as  to  affect  greatly  our  confidence  in  the  trust- 
worthiness of  the  books. 

The  genealogical  matter  in  Chronicles,  it  is  clear,  is 
largely  made  up  from  fragmentary  sources.  If  the  con- 
tents of  each  fragment  were  printed  separately  from  that 
of  the  others,  and  if  the  lacunae  were  indicated  by  dots, 
or  by  some  other  device,  that  would  help  us  to  see  the 
true  state  of  the  case.  It  would  separate  some  names  that 
now  seem  to  be  put  together.  It  would  account  for  some 
of  the  different  spellings  of  names  by  showing  that  the 
names  came  from  different  sources.  It  would  enable  us 
better  to  differentiate  the  instances  in  which  such  terms 
as  ''father"  and  ''son"  are  used  to  denote  more  remote 
ancestors  or  descendants.     A  study  of  this  aspect  of  the 


3i8  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

case  sustains  the  claim  that  the  Chronicler  has  here  fol- 
lowed sources,  and  has  used  his  sources  in  good  faith. 

There  are  some  detachable  stories  in  Chronicles,  which 
stand  by  themselves  {e.  g.  2  Chron.  13  :  3-17  or  20  : 
1-30).  One  of  these  stories  says  that  Abijah  had  400,- 
000  men  in  a  certain  battle,  and  that  Jeroboam  had  800,- 
000,  of  whom  500,000  were  slain.  If  any  person  should 
say  that  these  numbers  are  used  for  the  purpose  of 
warning  the  reader  that  the  account  is  not  history,  but  is 
a  story  told  for  the  purpose  of  teaching  lessons,  you 
might  perhaps  object  to  that  view  of  the  matter,  but  at 
all  events  it  is  not  an  impugnment  of  the  truthfulness 
of  the  books  of  Chronicles. 

It  is  alleged  that  at  many  points  the  books  of  Chronicles 
contradict  the  books  of  Samuel  and  Kings.  It  is  further 
alleged  that  the  books  of  Chronicles  are  characterized  by 
extravagant  estimates  of  the  ancient  glories  of  Israel. 
Most  of  these  instances  vanish  on  examination.  Among 
the  few  that  remain  are  a  very  few  that  present  real 
difficulties. 

Of  course  a  person  who  holds  to  the  falseness  of  all 
the  parts  of  the  Scriptures  that  testify  to  the  early 
origin  of  the  pentateuchal  institutions  must  hold  that  the 
Chronicles  are  false  throughout  (see  Chapter  XIX). 
There  is  no  sufficient  reason  why  any  other  person 
should  doubt  that  these  books  are  substantially  true 
history. 

On  the  basis  of  these  facts  work  out  for  yourself  a 
conception  of  the  circumstances  in  which  the  Old  Testa- 
ment was  completed.  One  tradition  counts  Ezra  and 
Nehemiah  and  Chronicles  as  the  latest  Old  Testament 


Ezra,  Nehemiah,  and  Chronicles         319 

books,  and  dates  them  not  later,  or  not  much  later,  than 

B.   C.  400.     Another  tradition  dates  these  books  much 

later,  and  teaches  that  some  other  Old 

Situation  Testament    writings    were    produced    in 

times  still  later.    For  the  purposes  of  the 

present  study  leave  these  questions  open.     Somebody  at 

some  time  did  this  final  work.    In  regard  to  some  points 

concerning  the  work  we  may  be  sure,  no  matter  who 

did  it,  or  when. 

All  agree  that  Ezra  the  scribe  and  the  other  scribes 
of  his  time — Ezra  and  Nehemiah  and  their  associates — 
did  something  very  important  in  this  matter.  The  older 
tradition  teaches  that  they  received  the  various  writings 
now  known  as  the  Scriptures,  and  edited  and  combined 
them,  putting  them  into  final  shape.  The  newer  tradition 
attributes  to  them  the  writing  or  rewriting  of  nearly  the 
whole,  leaving  the  completion  of  the  work  to  succeeding 
centuries.  Leave  this  question  open  for  the  moment. 
Somebody  at  some  date  completed  the  Old  Testament. 
Without  deciding  who  did  it,  let  us  look  at  the  work 
that  was  done. 

Most  men  who  treat  this  subject  start  with  the  as- 
sumption that  some  authoritative  person  or  organization 
No  Information   ''formed    the    canon,"    in    the    sense    of 
as  to  selecting   from   accessible   literature   the 

Canon-Making  writings  that  should  henceforth  be  re- 
garded as  Scripture.  But  we  have  no  information  that 
any  such  process  ever  occurred.  Neither  for  the  time  of 
Nehemiah  nor  for  any  other  time  have  we  any  account 
of  an  official  making  of  a  promulgated  canon.  All  the 
official    promulgations    come    from    late    centuries,    and 


320  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

merely  authenticate  what  they  declare  to  be  immemorial 
fact.  It  is  not  necessary  to  hold  that  there  ever  was  any 
canon-making  process  other  than  the  receiving  of  the 
books  as  Jehovah's  word  from  the  time  when  they  were 
written. 

The  term  "aggregate"  is  a  simpler  term  to  use  in  this 
connection  than  "canon"  or  "collection."  To  the  term 
"canon"  many  attach  the  idea  of  formal  and  official 
sanction.  The  scriptural  writings  may  supposably  have 
existed  as  a  collection  before  they  became  officially  a 
canon.  And  they  may  supposably  have  existed  as  an 
aggregate,  may  have  been  distinguished  in  thought  from 
other  writings,  before  any  one  brought  them  together  as 
a  collection  of  writings. 

In  part  from  the  information  at  which  we  have  glanced. 

and  in  part  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  we  know  that 

the  men  who  completed  the  Old  Testa- 

The  Different  ^  ^  \  ^\ 

Parts  of  the  Work  ^^"t  aggregate,  whoever  they  were, 
had  to  do  several  varieties  of  work. 
As  we  have  seen,  they  gathered  literary  materials — such 
writings  or  fragments  of  writings  as  they  could  f^i^d- 
bearing  on  the  history  and  the  sacred  institutions  of  their 
nation.  Further,  they  made  written  studies  on  subjects 
of  this  sort;  witness  the  "commentaries"  mentioned  in 
2  Chronicles  13  :  22  and  24  :  27,  and  perhaps  some  of 
the  other  works  that  are  mentioned  in  Chronicles.  Fur- 
ther still,  they  wrote  the  latest  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, whichever  these  may  be.  Yet  further,  they  gave 
form  to  the  aggregate  made  up  of  the  books  which  they 
wrote  combined  with  those  which  they  received  already 
written.     In  addition,  they  probably  did  a  work  of  re- 


Ezra,  Nehemiah,  and  Chronicles         321 

vising,  annotating,  and  otherwise  changing  the  writings 
which  compose  the  Scriptural  aggregate.  There  is  noth- 
ing in  any  doctrine  of  inspiration  to  forbid  this,  the  idea 
being  that  these  men  were  duly  inspired  for  this  work. 
The  tendency  now  is  to  go  to  an  extreme  in  attributing 
to  them  much  work  of  this  kind;  but  the  truth  certainly 
lies  nearer  the  opposite  extreme.  Finally,  they  did 
something  (not  all  that  the  traditions  assign  to  them, 
but  something)  in  the  way  of  making  arrangements  for 
the  uncorrupted  transmission  of  the  writings. 

The  men  who  completed  the  Old  Testament  did  not 
receive  their  aggregate  merely  in  the  form  of  separate 
books  or  sections  of  books.  The  work  of  aggregating 
had  been  done  in  part  by  their  predecessors.  Take  the 
Psalms,  for  example.  Our  book  of  Psalms  includes  cer- 
tain lesser  collections;  the  Psalms  of  Ascents  (120-134), 
the  Psalms  of  Asaph  (73-83),  the  Psalms  to  the  Sons  of 
Korah  (42-49,  84-88).  It  also  exhibits  other  traces  of 
earlier  collections  {^2  :  20,  for  instance).  The  men 
who  completed  our  book  of  Psalms,  with  its  present  ar- 
rangement in  five  books,  were  men  who  possessed  these 
older  collections,  and  they  incorporated  them  into  the 
final  collection  which  they  made.  Their  work  consisted 
partly  in  this,  and  not  merely  in  the  selecting  and  arrang- 
ing of  particular  Psalms. 

There   were   other   previous   aggrega- 

-  .  tions.     A  very  early  one  is  spoken  of  as 

*'the  book"   (Ex.   17  :  14;   i   Sam.   10  : 

25) — not  "a  book,"  as  in  the  versions.     There  was  the 

Mosaic  law  book   (Deut.  31  :  9-13,  24-26,  and   17  :  it, 

18),  and  the  law  book  of  Josiah's  time  (2  Kings  22  :  8, 


32  2  Reasonable  Biblical  Criticism 

etc.),  and  the  literary  work  of  the  men  of  Hezekiah 
(Prov.  25  :  i),  and  the  books  to  which  Daniel  had  access 
(Dan.  9:2),  and  the  book  read  by  Ezra  (Neh.  8  :  i  ff). 
The  word  ''law,"  in  a  large  number  of  the  places  where 
is  occurs,  denotes  an  aggregation  of  sacred  writings. 

In  fine,  what  information  we  have  is  to  the  effect  that 

from  early  times  there  existed  in  Israel  an  aggregation 

of  writings  which  were  received  as  a  rec- 

A-rf    J°^  ord   from  Jehovah;  that  this  aggregate 

was  augmented  from  time  to  time, 
particularly  in  the  times  of  Moses,  of  Samuel  and 
David,  of  Isaiah  and  Hezekiah,  of  Jeremiah,  of  Ezra  and 
Nehemiah.  It  was  a  growing  aggregate,  and  thought  of 
as  such.  There  came  a  time  when  it  ceased  to  grow,  and 
by  that  fact  it  became  complete.  Its  final  authors  re- 
ceived the  growing  aggregate,  augmented  it  by  such  writ- 
ings of  their  own  as  properly  belonged  to  it,  and  ar- 
ranged the  writings ;  for  example,  grouping  the  three 
books  of  the  major  prophets  and  the  twelve  books  of 
the  minor  prophets,  and  gathering  and  arranging  the 
Psalms. 

Our  information,  either  expressly  or  by  necessary  im- 
plication, attributes  this  aggregate  in  all  its  stages  to  men 
who  had  the  prophetic  gift,  but  it  is  silent  as  to  the  de- 
tails. There  is  no  early  tradition  of  any  vote  in  an  ec- 
clesiastical council,  or  of  any  pronouncement  by  some 
person  in  authority,  defining  this  body  of  sacred  writ- 
ings. All  that  we  know  is  that  it  was  an  aggregate  which 
had  been  growing  through  the  centuries,  and  had  been 
regarded  as  sacred  during  the  successive  stages  of.  its 
growth.     We  have  no  information  as   to  any   ''closing 


Ezra,  Nehemtah,   and  Chronicles         323 

of  the  canon"  other  than  the  writing  of  its  last  book  and 
the  arranging  of  the  books. 

In  Chapter  XVIII  we  have  looked  at  some  of  the 
many  reasons  for  believing  that  the  Old  Testament  ag- 
g^^^g^^^  became  complete  within  the  life- 
After  B  C^400  ^^"^^  °^  Nehemiah,  not  later  or  not  much 
later  than  400  B.  C.  We  cannot  prove 
that  from  then  a  copy  of  it  was  kept  in  the  temple,  care- 
fully distinguished  from  all  other  writings,  but  the  prob- 
abilities favor  this  idea.  Presumably  there  may  have  been 
complete  collections  of  the  aggregate  elsewhere,  but  the 
circulation  of  it  was  mostly  in  manuscripts  of  the  separate 
parts.  The  aggregation  was  more  a  matter  of  general 
knowledge  than  of  juxtaposition  of  manuscripts.  But 
somehow  or  other  the  aggregate  was  regarded  as  a  litera- 
ture by  itself.  This  is  presupposed  in  all  the  discus- 
sions which  arose,  some  centuries  later,  in  regard  to  the 
limits  of  the  canon. 

In  the  century  in  which  Jesus  lived  his  disciples  wrote 
the  New  Testament  books.  These  came  to  be  recognized 
as  a  growing  sacred  aggregate  precisely  in  the  same  way 
as  in  the  case  of  the  Old  Testament,  except  that  with 
the  New  Testament  the  process  covered  only  a  few 
decades  instead  of  many  centuries.  In  due  time.  Chris- 
tian opinion  placed  the  new  aggregate  on  the  same  foot- 
ing with  the  old.  Entirely  apart  from  all  questions  of 
official  canon-making,  the  double  aggregate  thus  formed 
stands  before  mankind  as  in  a  unique  sense  the  word 
of  God,  and  it  will  so  stand  forever. 


INDEX 


INDEX 


Abraham:  his  Babylonian  environ- 
ment, 126;  a  character  in  liter- 
ature, 124;  his  "concubines," 
147;  contemporary  of  Hammu- 
rabi, i25fif;  the  number  of  his 
retainers,  118;  his  place  in  Bible 
chronology,  i8iff;  in  the  his- 
tory of  religion,  117;  Sarah  his 
-wife,  78;  the  testimony  concern- 
ing him,  129;  the  usages  he 
brought   from   Babylonia,   225. 

"The  Narrative  Concerning  Abra- 
ham,"   116,    Ch.    IX. 

The  Abraham  narrative:  its  chro- 
nology, 125;  four  sources?  116; 
free  from  grotesqueness,  121; 
from  inconsistencies,  123;  from 
incredible  statements,  121;  from 
marks  of  folklore,  121  ff;  his- 
torical, or  mythical?  ii6ff; 
inadequate  ways  of  understand- 
ing it,  118;  manifestations  of 
Deity  in  it,  119,  122;  opponents 
of  its  historicity — no  consensus, 
ii9ff;  personalized  history,  122; 
scale  of  measurement  of  its 
events,  118;  value  as  a  story 
or  series  of  stories,    117. 

Abrahamic   secondary  peoples,    i45ff. 

"Accepted  Principles  of  Criticism," 
71,  Ch.   VI. 

Accession  year  versus  first  year,  78, 
179. 

Adam's   rib,   46. 

Aggregate,    collection,   canon,    320. 

"Agnostic  and  Cryptoagnostic  Criti- 
cism," 3,  Ch.  I. 

Agnostic  and  crvptoagnostic:  no  per- 
sons classified  under  these 
terms,  6;  the  terms  not  used 
opprobriously,    4. 

Agnostic  criticism  and  the  Hammu- 
rabi  laws,   226. 

Agnosticism  and  cryptoagnosticism 
defined,  3;  a  concrete  and  prac- 
tical question,  6;  affecting  the 
so-called  Modern  View,  5,  12; 
criterion  in  the  case  of  the 
Scriptures,  5;  neutralizing  prog- 
ress  in  the  churches.    12. 

Ahab  and  Shalmanezer  II,  21  iff. 

Ahaz,    196,  200. 


Alexander  the  great,  254. 

Allegorical  interpretation  of  Gene- 
sis,  90. 

Allegory,  62. 

Altorientalische  Texte  und  Bilder 
sum  Alien  Testamente,  Gress- 
mann,  Ungnad  and  Ranke,  189, 
243,   259. 

Amateur    cryptoagnosticism,    10,    68. 

Amos  and  Assyria,  196. 

Amurru,  A.  T.  Clay,   129. 

Ancient  Records  of  Egypt,  J.  H. 
Breasted,    189. 

Annals  of  tJie  Assyria7i  Kings, 
L.  W.  King,  190. 

Anthropomorphic  speaking,  28,  93, 
94. 

Apocrypha,   stories   in,   306. 

Apologetics   and  historical  truth,   26. 

Aramaic  Papyri  Discovered  at  As- 
suan,    Sayce   and   Cowley,    245ff, 

259; 

"Aramaic   Papvri   from   Egypt,"   244, 

Ch.  XVIII. 
Aramaic  papyri:  Darius  Nothus,  245: 

the  dates  they  contain,  245;  see 

"Jeb    Letters." 
Archaeological    discoveries:    affecting 

criticism,     i73ff;     touching     the 

Scriptures,    191. 
Arnold,   Matthew,   299. 
Arsam,  or  Arsham,  satrap  in  Egypt. 

246ff. 
Artaxerxes,  300. 
Asnnh,  psalms  of,  321. 
Asshur-daan  HI,   192. 
Asshnr-nirari  II,   192. 
Assumptiors,      undue      are      to      be 

avoided,    76. 
Assyrian  Canon.   George  Smith,    189. 
Assyrian    and    Biblical    chronologies. 

22,    186. 
Assyrian    dated    events.    loiff. 
Assyrian  Discoveries,  George   Smith, 

190. 
Assyrian    politics    in     Israel,     196. 
Assyrian     records,     93;      concerning 

Ahab,    21  iff;    illustrating   Arnos, 

196;       background       for       Bible 

records,     195;    concerning    Ben- 

hadad,    211;    proving    historicity 

for    Bible    persons    and    events. 


28 


Index 


19s;  illustrating  Hosea,  196; 
concerning  Jehu,  210;  a  syn- 
chronism that  is  exact,  21  r; 
concerning  Uzziah,  196. 

Assyrische  Lesestiicke,  Friedrich 
Delitzsch,   189. 

Astronomy,   9 iff,    98ff. 

Authority,  85;  as  a  cheap  way  of 
reaching  conclusions,  74;  nor- 
mal  and   abnormal,   73. 

Authorship  of  hexateuch,   53, 

Authorship,  testimony  to,  23. 

Baby    ideas    of    the    Bible,    119;    in 

contrast   with   adult   ideas,    154; 

our  failure  to   revise  them,   155, 
Baby-story  interpretations,   153. 
Babylonian  creation  narratives,  92. 
Babylonian   literary   marks,   61. 
Bagohi,   Bagoas,    Bagoses,  245ff. 
Bagohi  and  Jehohanan,   2S3ff. 

Baldwin    Lectures    for    1909,    7. 
Beginnings      of      Hebrew     History, 

^  Kent,  looff. 
Believing   as    we    have   been   taught, 

7iff. 
Benhadad  of  Damascus,  21  iff. 
Bethel  and   Dan  versus  the   Deuter- 

onomic  law,  271. 
Bible:  denial  of  its  facts,  9;  "a  new 

book,"  48;   a  people's  book,  83; 

suited    to    little    children,     154, 

views  concerning,   51. 
Bible   chronology,    175;    Bible    days, 

180;    the    Bible   year,    177.      See 

Chronology. 
Bible  Student  and   Teacher,    13,   70, 

259- 
Biblical  Researches,    Edward    Robin- 
son,  16,  26. 
Bibliographical   lists,    12,    26,   37,   69, 

85,  loi,  115,  129,  189,  207,  243, 

259,  276. 
Biology,  91,  99. 
Bishlam's  letter,   21. 
Borrowed  Time  Club,  89ff. 
Brooklyn  Eagle,   7. 
The     "Burden,"     Isaiah     14  :  28-32, 

2l8ff. 

Burnaburiash,  126. 

Canon,  collection,  aggregate,  320. 

Canon,  formal,  319,  322ff. 

Chaldean  Account  of  Genesis,  etc., 
^George  Smith,  100. 

Christianity,    is    it   retrograding?    12. 

Chronicles,  books  of,  20,  272,  see 
Ezra-Nehemiah-Chronicles;  clos- 
ing sentences,  313;  contents, 
313;  detachable  stories,  318; 
fragmentary  sources,  317;  gene- 


alogies, 313  ff;  Greek  title,  315; 
historicity,    318. 

Chronicles  Concerning  Early  Baby- 
lonian Kings,  L.  W.  King,  125, 
190. 

Chronology,  accession  year  versus 
first  year,  179;  Assyrian,  22, 
i86ff;  Babylonian,  i25ff;  bro- 
ken years  at  end  of  a  reign, 
179;  criticism  and  chronology, 
175;  Egyptian,  maximum  dates 
on  monuments,  Sothic  cycle, 
i87ff;  "grocery  method"  and 
"post-office  method,"  178;  reg- 
nal years,  i79ff;  years  counted 
twice,   179. 

Chronology,  biblical,  Abraham  to  the 
exodus,  181;  the  century  after 
Solomon,  180,  184;  different 
forms  in  different  periods,  181; 
the  exodus  to  Gideon,  182; 
forty-year  periods,  i82ff;  pre- 
Abrahamic,  181;  reigns  of  the 
judges  and  kings,   184. 

Chronology,  biblical,  versus  Assyr- 
ian, 186;  comparing  dates,  187; 
confusion  in  dates,  175;  versus 
Egyptian,  187;  rejection  of  the 
Bible  data,  176;  round  numbers, 
i82ff;  self-testing  numbers,  180; 
synchronistic  value  greater  than 
numerical  value,  176;  Ussher's 
millennial  views,  i85ff;  view  in 
"Dated  Events  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament," 185;  views  that  are 
held,    i84ff. 

The  Church  of  the  future  and  a 
truthful  Bible,  25. 

Collection,    canon,   aggregate,   320. 

Common  experience  as  interpreting 
the  Scriptures,  75. 

Common  people  and  the  Scriptures, 
82. 

Composite  authorship,  52,  104;  and 
inspiration,    106. 

Conservative  versus  cryptoagnostic 
procedures,  77. 

Conservative  scholars,  critical  and 
uncritical,  72ff. 

Cosmogony,   biblical,  93. 

The  creation  narrative  in  Genesis, 
89ff;  account  for  it,  100;  Baby- 
lonian version,  92;  child's  idea 
of  it,_  89,  90;  contrast  with  other 
creation  stories,  99;  "create,"  of 
nothing,  theories,  90,  91,  95; 
cryptoagnostic  view,  93;  the 
daysworks  still  in  process,  97; 
the  earth  mainly,  the  heavens  in- 
cidentally, 95 ;  the  events,  96ff; 
the  events  are  facts,  and  correct. 


hidex 


329 


99;  the  events  a  selection,  97; 
the  facts,  where  did  the  author 
get  them?  100;  folklore  with 
polytheism  eliminated?  93,  113; 
the  framework,  96;  geological 
days,  91;  interpreting  one  event 
by  another,  97;  means  as  used 
by  God,  90;  nebular  hypothesis, 
92;  not  a  myth,  94;  patristic  in- 
terpretations, 90;  Phenician  ac- 
counts, 92;  point  of  view  that 
of  an  observer,  98;  religious 
purpose,  95;  separate  from  but 
consistent  with  the  narrative 
that  follows,  94;  its  silences, 
wrong  inferences  from  them,  97; 
an    unaccustomed    reader,    94. 

Criteria  of  J,   E,  D,   P,   54. 

Criterion  of  agnosticism  concerning 
the  Scriptures,  5. 

Critical  ideas  to  be  accepted  if  they 
are  true,  71. 

Critical  principles  and  conservative 
scholars,  tz. 

Critical    study,    when    obligatory,    T2. 

Critical  view,  a  better  one  needed, 
49. 

"Criticism  and  Chronology,"  175, 
Ch.  XIV. 

Criticism,  higher,  38;  New  Testa- 
ment, 67;  parties,  the  dividing 
line,    15. 

Cryptoagnosticism,  4,  232flf,  see 
Agnosticism;  amateur,  10:  its 
assumptions,  77ff;  its  estimate 
of  Sennacherib,  194;  its  ignor- 
ing of  evidence,  81;  on  the 
Hammurabi  laws,  226;  its  inter- 
pretation of  Genesis,  93;  mode 
of  procedure,  tt\  viciously  tra- 
ditional,  74ff. 

Cuneiform  Inscriptions,  etc.,  Schra- 
der,    190,    192. 


D  WRITERS  and  writings,  53,  65, 
26off,  etc. 

Damascus   and   Tiglath-pilezer,   200. 

Daniel  and  Ezekiel,  278;  intercessory 
gift,  278ff;  with  Nebuchadnez- 
zar,  77. 

"The  Book  of  Daniel,"  277,  Ch. 
XX;  its  Aramaic  and  that  of 
the  Egypt  papyri,  286;  conclu- 
sions concerning  it,  290;  con- 
tents of  the  five  stories,  279; 
contents  of  the  _  visions,  279, 
Daniel  is  the  subject,  278;  date 
and  authorship,  28off;  dates  in 
years  of  Nebuchadnezzar  and 
others,   279;   Driver's  arguments 


for  Maccabean  date,  283  ff; 
Greek  words,  285;  a  hypothesis 
as  to  date,  288;  kingdom  of 
God  in  Daniel,  279fT;  Macca- 
bean use  of  the  book,  287;  ob- 
jectionable theories,  289;  Per- 
sian marks,  281;  revelation  of 
future  history,  277;  truthful- 
ness,  289;   two   parts,   278. 

Darius  Nothus  in  the  Aramaic 
papyri,  245. 

Dated  Events  of  the  Old  Testament, 
W.  J.  Beecher,  177,  180,  185, 
189,  196,  207. 

Dates  assigned  to  the  parts  of  the 
hexateuch,    59. 

Dates,  comparison  of,   187. 

Dawson,   Sir  J.  W.,   17. 

Days  in  Genesis,  are  they  long 
periods?  91. 

Definition  versus  induction,  84. 

Deteriorating  tradition,  law  of,  47. 

Deuteronomic  law,  81,  266;  Bethel 
and  Dan  in  violation  of  it,  271; 
Canaanitish  highplaces,  266; 
exempts  private  sacrificial  feasts, 
266;  Egypt  not  within  its  juris- 
diction, 266;  Elijah's  altars,  272; 
existing  from  time  of  Moses, 
272;  a  forgery?  269,  275;  Hosea 
recognizes  it,  272;  the  Jeb 
letters,  249!?;  Jeroboam's  great 
sin,  271;  and  that  of  Judah  and 
Israel,  271  ff;  the  Modern  View 
founded  on  the  assertion  that 
this  law  is  a  falsehood,  269; 
Pillars, _  266;  the  real  question, 
274;  witness  of  Joshua,  270;  of 
Judges  and  Samuel,  270;  of 
Kings  and  Chronicles,  271. 

"The  Book  of  Deuteronomy,"  263, 
Ch.  XIX;  the  alternative  if  it 
is  not  historical,  275;  center  of 
critical  attack,  263;  claims  to 
Mosaic  authorship,  265;  con- 
tents historical,  27 1^;  dated 
"across  the  ^  Jordan,"  fortieth 
year,  264;  divisions  and  struc- 
ture, 264ff;  a  fictional  hypothe- 
sis, 267;  literature  on,  276;  mis- 
chievous reasoning,  268;  Moses 
in  a  fair  sense  the  author,  275; 
Ryle's  date  for  it,  267;  its 
truthfulness  bound  up  with  that 
of  all  parts  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments,    263,    268,    270. 

Dictation  of  _  the  Scriptures  to  hu- 
man writers,  28;  not  the  re- 
ceived doctrine,  29,  31. 

Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  Hastings, 
267,  etc. 


330 


Index 


Differences  between  oral  and  printed 

Bible  stories,    133. 
Divine  element  in  the  Scriptures  not 

discounted,  36. 
Documents  of  the  Hexateuch,  Addis, 

69,  276. 
Drei    AramdiscJie    Papyrusurktmden 

aus  Elephantine,  Sachau,  259. 

E  WRITERS  and  writings,  53,  65,  117, 

130,  i48ff. 

The  Earth's  Beginning,  Sir  Robert 
Stawell  Ball,  loi. 

Edomite  kings,  57. 

Egyptian  Book  of  the  Dead,  223. 

Egyptian  chronology,  see  Chronol- 
ogy. 

The  Elements  of  the  Higher  Criti- 
cism, Zenos,  12. 

Elephantine.  244. 

Elijah  and  the  Deuteronomic  law, 
272. 

Elohim  and  Jehovah,   53,    103. 

"Eminent   scholars,"    74,    75. 

Encyclopadia    Biblica,     Cheyne,     93, 

131,  192,   195,  215,  etc. 
Environment   and    heredity,    3ifif. 
Errors  of  fact  in  the  Bible,  19,  20. 
Errors   in  the  sources,   20,   21,   22. 
Esther,    was    her    marriage    ethical? 

293,  296. 

*'The  Book  of  Esther,"  292,  Ch. 
XXI;  abused  most  of  all  Bible 
books,  292;  bad  detailed  work 
on  it,  308;  canonicity,  304; 
compromise  notions,  307;  contin- 
uous, not  a  collection  of  tracts, 
292;  date,  303;  didactic  fiction? 
306;  divine  names  absent,  or 
cryptically  hidden,  297;  early 
misapprehensions,  300;  ethics  al- 
leged to  be  bad,  296;  fasting 
mentioned,  207;  God  invisible, 
but  caring,  298;  Greek  additions 
and  changes,  300,  301;  the 
great  ideas  in  the  book,  299; 
historicity,  305;  humor,  302; 
interdependence  of  human  be- 
ings, 297;  linguistic  character- 
istics, 303;  literary  character- 
istics, 302;  outline  of  the  story, 
292;  Persian  marks,  303;  petty 
comment  on,  300;  religious  omis- 
sions, 297;  its  real  religious 
ideas,  297;  revenge,  296;  the 
true  theory,  319;  truthfulness  of 
the  book,  304. 

Etiology,   10. 

The  Evangelists  charged  with  substi- 
•  tuting  tales  for  facts,  7,  8. 

Evidence    the     only    proper    critical 


basis,  73;  both  intellectually  and 
morally  binding,  -jz't  principles, 
80. 

Evolution,  91. 

Existing  situation.  "How  to  _  Ac- 
count for  the  Existing  Situa- 
tion,"  38,   Ch.   IV. 

The   Exodus  narrative,    155. 

Experts,  evidence  of,  75. 

Ezra  and  his  associates,  54;  book 
of  Ezra,  21,  3ioff;  men  of  the 
Great  Synagogue,  251;  migra- 
tion of  Ezra,  312;  speaking  in 
first  person,  314;  work  on  Old 
Testament,  54ff,  319. 

"The  Books  of  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  and 
Chronicles,"   310,   Ch.   XXII. 

Ezra-Nehemiah-Chronicles,  author- 
ship, 313;  closing  part  of  the 
Old  Testament,  310;  contents, 
312;  extrabiblical  sources,  315, 
historicity,  316;  inserted  docu- 
ments, 3i3ff;  Old  Testament  as 
a  source,  314;  purpose  of  the 
work,  315;  quoted  passages,  313; 
a  single  work  or  series,  311; 
state  papers,  312;  testimony  to 
Mosaic  and  Davidic  laws,  317. 

Fabrication  in  the  Scriptures,  6^', 
see  Fiction,  Forgery,   Parable. 

Fact,  biblical,   denials  of,   9,   68,  etc. 

Faith   "wrenched   and   tried,"   224. 

Falsified  history,   62ff,   266flf,  etc. 

Fathers   of   peoples,    119,    145. 

Favorable   presumptions,   82. 

Fiction  in  the  Scriptures,  19,  267, 
286ff,  305ff;  see  Fabrication, 
Forgery,  Parable. 

Fiction  true  for  its  own  purposes, 
15- 

Figure    of   speech   in   the    Bible,    ig. 

Filling-in    processes,    84,    160,     i65ff. 

The  Flood,  was  it  universal?    104. 

"The  Flood  Narrative,"  102,  Ch. 
VIII;  analysis,  losflf;  Baby- 
lonian and  Israelitish  stories  re- 
lated, 112;  chronological  diffi- 
culties, 114;  composite?  105; 
consistent,  logff;  historical,  113, 
115;  J  and  P  hypothesis,  io6ff; 
late  date  alleged  but  not  proved, 
109;  literature  on,  115;  truthful- 
ness proved  by  consistency, 
ii2ff;    a   year-myth?    114. 

Folklore,  19,  49,  68,  93,  ii6fif,  121, 
123,   307,   308,   etc. 

Forgery  in  the  Scriptures,  267,  269, 
275,  etc.;  see  Fabrication,  Fic- 
tion,  Parable. 

Forty    years,     Moabite    stone,     216; 


Index 


331 


periods  of,   182;   round  number, 

176. 
Fourfold    camp    in    wilderness,    156, 

159. 
Freedom  of  the  human  mind,  -jz,  74. 

Genealogies  in  Chronicles,  313;  of- 
ten  fragmentary,   317. 

Genesis,  102,  189;  The  Book  of 
Genesis  in  the  Light  of  Modern 
Knowledge,  Elwood  VVorcester, 
115;  "The  First  Narrative  in 
Genesis."    89,    Ch,    VII. 

Geology,   gSff. 

Gospels  alleged  to  be  untrue  to  fact, 
7ff. 

"The  Great  Present  Day  Question: 
Are  the  Scriptures  True?"  14, 
Ch.  II. 

Great  Synagogue,  men  of,  2SiflF,  310. 

"Grocery  method"  versus  "Post- 
Office  method,"  i78ff. 

Hairsplitting  versus  vital  issues, 
iiff. 

Haman,  293ff. 

Hamrnurabi  and  Abraham,  issff; 
his  fine  ambition,  146;  his  ao- 
mains,   222ff. 

The  Code  of  Hammurabi,  R.  F.  Har- 

..^i.  pel",  243. 
The  Legislation  of  Hammurabi  and 
that    of    the    Pentateuch,"    222, 
Ch.  XVII. 

The  Hammurabi  code  civil,  not  cere- 
monial, 227;  a  description  of  it, 
227;  it  disproves  agnostic  views, 
226;  ethical  interest  in  it,  223; 
formulated  in  what  way?  224; 
sociological  interest,  223;  troub- 
ling the  faith  of  some,  22^^. 

Hammurabi  laws  and  the  penta- 
teuch,  222ff;  injuries  to  per- 
sons, 230;  to  property,  230; 
resemblances  that  are  non-sig- 
nificant, 227;  revelation  claimed 
for  both,  but  with  a  contrast, 
234;  sex  legislation,  229;  slave 
legislation,  228fF;  matters  of  uni- 
versal   human   conduct,   232. 

Hammurabi  in  contrast^  with  the  pen- 
tateuch:  city  civilization  in 
Hammurabi,  pastoral  in  the 
pentateuch,  232!?;  the  laws  of 
conduct  part  of  the  religion  of 
Israel,  235;  taught  to  children, 
23s. 

Hammurabi  and  the  higher  levels  of 
the  pentateuch,  235;  literary 
quality,   231;   capital   and   labor, 


237;  class  legislation,  236; 
equality  and  fraternity,  236;  ex- 
planations, moral  or  humane, 
235ff;  humane  provisions,  22,7; 
imprecations  compared  with 
threats,  235;  penalties,  commu- 
tation of,  death  penalty,  lex 
talionis,  penalties  on  relatives, 
for  theft,  etc.,  237ff;  Sabbath, 
2^7;  safeguarding  justice,  240; 
slaves,  229;  ten  commandments 
and  law  of  love,  24 iff. 

Hazael  and  Shalmanezer  II,  215. 

Heredity   and   environment,   3 iff. 

The  Hcxatetich,  J.  E.  Carpenter,  69, 
276. 

Hexateuch,  comparison  of  views, 
52ff;  when  written,  59;  its  legis- 
lation and  narrative,  62. 

Hezekiah.  2ooff. 

Higher  criticism,   3S. 

Higher  Criticism  of  the  Pentateuch, 
W.   H.   Green,   69,   276. 

The  historical  books  and  the  Jeb 
letters,   249ff. 

The  Historic  Exodus,  Toffteen,  259. 

Historicity,  62;  and  apologetics,  26; 
denials  of,  7,  8,  63,  etc.;  testi- 
mony to,  24;  and  truthfulness, 
109;  two  kinds,  306;  why  in- 
sist? 25. 

Holy  Bible,  Polychrome  Edition,  see 
Polychrome   Bible. 

Homiletic  Review,    13,  82,   102. 

Hosea,   65,    196,  272. 

Hoshea,    i98ff. 

Human   freedom   of  mind,   31,   74. 

Human  thinking,  changed  habits, 
4iff. 

Humor  in  the  Bible,    132,   163,  302. 

Ideas  may  be  true  equally  with 
facts,    15. 

Impregnable  Rock  of  Holy  Scrip- 
ture,  Gladstone,   276. 

Inadvertence,  errors  of,   15. 

Inconsistencies  alleged,  8  iff,  109, 
117,  124,  etc.;  by  interpretation, 
III. 

Independent  records  test  each  other, 
208. 

Induction  versus  definition,  84. 

Inductive   thinking,   41. 

"Inspiration:  How  God  Gave  the 
Scriptures,"    27,    Ch.    III. 

Inspiration,  the  Church  doctrine, 
28,  30;  composite  authorship, 
107;  human  experiences  in,  18; 
providential  leadings  and  spirit; 
ual  impulses,  3iff;  two  uses  of 
the  term,  32;  verbal,  29.^ 


00- 


Index 


Institutions  brought  by  Abraham 
from    Babylonia,    225. 

Interpretations,  mechanical,  83;  na- 
turalistic,   16. 

Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the 
Old  Testament,  Driver,  5,  61, 
69,    259,    276,    303. 

Investigate  for  yourself,  y^,  263; 
see  Authority. 

Ishmaelites,    i45ff,   i48ff. 

Israel  and  Jacob,   140. 

Israel  and  the  Deuteronomic  law, 
271;  mission  of,  34. 

Issues  at  stake  vital,    12,    16. 

J  WRITERS  and  writings,  53,  65,  104- 
108,   117,    124,    130,    148<T. 

"The  Case  of  Jacob,"   130,  Ch.  X. 

Jacob,  his  blessing  his  sons,  56;  the 
birthright,  how  he  obtained  it, 
140;  his  character,  135;  his  con- 
troversy with  God,  137;  and 
Israel,  140;  and  Laban,  138;  his 
obstinacy  and  God's  care,  i37flf; 
purpose  of  God,  136;  religious 
procrastination,  136;  restitu- 
tion to  Esau,  I39ff;  results  of 
trickery,  137;  a  sinner  saved  by 
grace,  142;  a  test  sketch,  141. 

Jacob-el,    131. 

The  Jacob  narrative  as  our  ances- 
tors received  it,  133;  ethical 
difficulties,  131;  humor,  132; 
personalized  history?  i3off; 
sociological  interpretations,  132; 
time  data;  134,  144;  understand 
it,  to  begin  with,  133;  unhistori- 
cal?  130. 

Jaddua,  2S3ff,  255,  257. 

JE  writers  and  writings,  53. 

Jeb,  Elephantine  in  Egypt,  245,  247. 

The  Jeb  letters,  245;  their  Aramaic, 
256,  258;  contemporaneous  with 
Nehemiah,  247,  251;  do  they  dis- 
credit Deuteronomy?  249ff;  or 
the  historical  Scriptures?  249ff; 
or  Jeremiah?  248;  latest  Old 
Testament  events,  25ifif;  litera- 
ture, 259;  mention  of  Bible  per- 
sons, 246;  the  reply  to  it,  247; 
results,  258;  settling  of  issues 
and  dates,  256!?. 

Jehovah  and  Elohim,  53,  103. 

Jehu  and  his  dynasty,  igsff;  and 
Shalmanezer   II,   210,    215. 

Jeremiah  and  the  Jeb  letters,  248. 

Jeroboam    I   and    Deuteronomy,    271. 

Jeroboam  II,   195. 

Jeshua   and  Zerubbabel,   312. 

Jesus,  testimony  to  Old  Testament 
authorship,   60;   three   days   and 


nights  in  the  grave,  180;  use  of 
the  Old  Testament,  67. 

Job,  book  of,  46. 

Johanan,  Jehohanan,  Jonathan,  John, 
highpriest,    246ff;     and     Bagohi, 

^       253ff. 

Joseph,  his  years  of  famine,  17. 

"The  Narrative  Concerning  Joseph," 
143;  Ch.  XI;  an  Ephraimite  plus 
a  Judahite  story?  i48ff;  falsity 
charged,  151;  personalized  his- 
tory? 144;  time  data,  144; 
value  as  a  story,  143. 

Josephus,    182,  252fif,  301. 

Judah  and  the  Deuteronomic  law, 
271. 

Judges,  book  of,  60,  64. 

Kings,  books  of,  65,  273. 

Korah,   sons  of,   321. 

Korean   way   of   counting   time,    178. 

Legal  usages  among  early  peoples, 
224. 

Legend,    62flf. 

Lehi,  battle  of,  167;  political  re- 
sults,   168. 

Letters  used  as  numerals,   176. 

Library   of   Nehemiah,    316. 

Light  on  the  Old  Testament  from 
Babel,  A.  T.  Clay,  243. 

Literary      differences      in      Genesis, 

I02flf. 

Literary      phenomena     and      Mosaic 

authorship,  60. 
Literature,  the  Scriptures  as,  28,  35. 
Love,     law     of    in    the    pentateuch, 

24  iff. 
Lowell,  James   Russell,  298. 
Luz  and   Bethel,   56. 

Manasseh  of  the  Samaritan  schism, 
253. 

Manna,    156,    i6off. 

Mechanical   interpretations,   46,   83. 

Medanites,  i45ff. 

Menahem  and   Pul,    196. 

Merodach-baladan,    193,  204,  220. 

Mesha,  2i5ff;  later  than  Omri,  216; 
synchronous  with  Jehu,  217; 
his  victories  later  than  his  de- 
feats,  2l6ff. 

Midianites,   i45ff,   I48ff. 

Midrash,   "commentaries,"   320. 

Migrations,   early,    127. 

Miracle  and  natural  law,  44;  in  the 
giving   of   Scripture,    35. 

The  mission  of  each  people,  and  of 
Israel,   34. 

Moabite  stone,    189,   2i5ff. 

Modern   View,    5,    38;    on   the   hexa- 


Index 


teuch,     51  ff;    laudable    in    some 

ways,   but  a   failure,   45,   48;   its 

prevalence,     39;     product     of    a 

situation,  39. 
Months,  177. 
Mordecai,  300,  305. 
Mosaic    authorship,    what    the    term 

should  mean,  58;  evidence,   sqAF. 
Mosaic    Origin    of    the    Pentateuchal 

Codes,  W.  H.  Green,  276. 
Moses     in     Deuteronomy,     57;     and 

Hammurabi,   222ff;   a  myth?  62. 
Movements  of  men  in  masses,  155. 
Myth,  62,  94,   ii6ff,  123,   i63ff. 


Natural  factors  in  the  Scriptures, 
18. 

Naturalistic  interpretations,   16. 

Natural  law  and  miracle,  44. 

Nebuchadnezzar,  77,  93,   199. 

Nebular  hypothesis,  91. 

"Negative    Confessions,"    223. 

Nehemiah,  book  of,  two  narratives 
and  a  genealogical  note,  312!?. 

Nehemiah,  his  career,  312;  completed 
the  Old  Testament,  252,  313, 
319,  and  see  Ezra;  the  Jeb  let- 
ters, 251;  his  library,  316; 
speaking  in  the  first  person,  314. 

New  Testament  and  Criticism,  67; 
its  use  of  the  Old  Testament,  67, 

Numbers  expressed  by  letters,  176. 


Obelisk,  black,  210. 

Observing  facts  better  than  defining, 
29. 

Older  views,  inadequacy  of,  4off. 

The  Old  Testament  in  the  Light  of 
the  Historical  Records,  Pinches, 
190. 

Old  Testament,  an  aggregate,  a  col- 
lection, a  canon,  320;  comple- 
tion of,  254fF,  310;  Ezra  and  his 
associates,  55,  3i8ff;  a  growing 
aggregate,  322;  issue  between 
the  Old  and  the  New  traditions, 
25iflf,  256,  318-319;  issue  set- 
tled by  the  Jeb  papyri,  256; 
latest  events,  25iflf,  253;  previ- 
ous aggregations,  321;  the  situa- 
tion, 318;  varieties  of  work 
done,  320. 

Old  Testament,  order  in  which  the 
books   are  arranged,    311. 

Omri   dynasty,   210,    215. 

Omri's  "son"  and  Mesha,  216. 

Oral    transmission,    133,    157. 

Original  sources,  go  as  near  as  pos- 
sible, 79. 


P  WRITERS  and  writings,  54,  65,  104- 
108,  117,  124,  130,  i48ff. 

The  Panorama  of  Creation,  D.  L. 
Holbrook,  loi. 

Papyri,  Aramaic,  55,  244ff,  see  Ara- 
maic  Papyri. 

Parable,  15,  19,  62,  267,  289S,  305ff. 
see  Fabrication,  Fiction,  For- 
gery. 

Partition  seams,  148;  theories,  how 
objectionable?    151. 

Parts   interpreted   by   the   whole,   80. 

Patchwork    versus    literature,    150. 

The  patriarchs,  their  ages,  121;  not 
nomads,   119. 

Patristic  interpretations,  90. 

Pekah  and  Tiglath-pilezer,   197. 

The  Pentateuch,  Its  Origin  and 
Structure,  E.  C.  Bissell,  276. 

Pentateuchal  legislation,  formulated 
how,  225;  Hammurabi,  222flf; 
originated  in  pastoral  times,  233; 
see    Hammurabi,    Hexateuch. 

Persian  marks,  61,   281,  303. 

Personalized  history,  62,  122,  i3off, 
144. 

Philistia  and  the  Assyrians,  200, 
220. 

Pillars,  81,  266,  272. 

Pocahontas,  not  a  myth,    123. 

Point  of  view  of  an  author,  83;  of 
reasonable  criticism,   iff. 

Polychrome   Bible,   60,   69,    150,   276. 

Post-Mosaic  elements  in  hexateuch, 
5Sff.   61. 

"Post-office  method,"  i78ff. 

Present  day  question,  truthfulness 
of   Scripture,   14. 

Presumptions,    favorable,   82. 

Prideaux,  300. 

Problem  of  Faith  and  Freedom, 
Oman,  85. 

Problem  of  the  Old  Testament, 
James   Orr,   69. 

Proceedings,  Society  of  Bib.  Arch., 
259- 

Procedure,  conservative  versus  ag- 
nostic, 77. 

Process  of  giving  the  Scriptures,  33. 

Prolegomena,   Wellhausen,   276. 

The  Prophets  and  the  Promise,  W.  J. 
Beechcr,  37. 

The   Prophets   of   Israel,    Cornill,    7. 

Protestant    doctrine,    73,    75. 

Psalms,   21,   210,  321. 

Pul,    i96ff,    see    Tiglath-pilezer. 

Purim,    295ff. 

R  WRITERS  and  writings,  54. 

Raphia,  battle  of,    193. 

"Reasonable    Criticism    and    Archaeo- 


334 


Index 


logical  Discoveries,"  t-IZ^, 
Part  III;  "and  Certain  Books 
of  the  Bible,"  261  ff.  Part  IV; 
"as  Affecting  Particular  Old 
Testament  Narratives,"  Sjff, 
Part  II;  "Point  of  View  and 
Principles,"    iff,    Part   I. 

Records  of  the  Past,  Sayce,    190. 

Red  Sea,  the  crossing,   16. 

Religion  of  Jehovah,  early  history,  9. 

Religious     conceptions,     changes     in, 

43- 
Repudiation  of  Bible  numbers,   176. 
Revelation  of  God  in  the  Scriptures, 

28. 
Round  numbers,    176,    i82ff,   184, 


Sachau,  editor  of  papyri,  24sff,  259. 

Samaria,  Benhadad,  213!?;  captured 
by  Sargon,  B.  C.  722,  193;  de- 
feated with  allies,  B.  C.  720, 
193;  final  siege,  193,  199. 

Samson,  battle  of  Lehi,  167;  Delilah, 
170;  his  followers,  i66flf;  gifts 
for  leadership,  165;  humor  and 
strength.  163,  165;  the  jawbone, 
167;  judge  of  Israel,  164,  168; 
his  long  hair,  169;  his  loss  of 
the  game,  172;  love  of  adven- 
ture, 170;  his  morals,  168;  "The 
Narrative  Concerning  Samson," 
163,  Ch.  XIII;  psychological 
phenomena,  169;  recklessness, 
170;  repentance,  172;  the  six 
stories,  164;  song  at  Lehi,  167; 
Spirit  of  Jehovah,  168;  a  sun- 
myth?  i63ff;  temptation,  fooling 
with,  171;  the  Timnathite 
woman,  166;  his  two  weak- 
nesses,   169. 

Samuel,    55;   books  of,   60,   64. 

Sanballat,    246flf. 

Sargon,    193,    i99ff,   203flF,   220. 

Savce  and   Cowlev,   245flF,    259. 

Schaff-Hersog  Encyclopedia,  New, 
8,   131,  276,  307. 

Science,   and  truth   of   Scripture,   17 ■ 

Scientific  Confirmations  of  Old  Tes- 
tament History,  G.  F.  Wright, 
17,  26. 

Scriptures,  agnostic  position,  4;  for 
common  people,  82;  common  ex- 
perience to  interpret  them,  75; 
their  contents  versus  our  notions 
of  the  contents,  79;  a  divine 
element  that  is  unique.  14,  27, 
36flF;  a  literature,  28,  35flf; 
mechanical  conceptions  of,  46; 
natural  factors  in,  18;  process 
by    which    the    Supreme    Power 


gave  them,  32ff;  a  revelation 
from  God,  28. 

Semitic  migrations,    127. 

Sennacherib,    191,    i93ff,   201-207. 

Sennacherib  narrative,  cryptoagnos- 
tic  estimates,  194;  literary  struc- 
ture, 2oifTf;  misunderstandings 
that  are  current,  202;  "that 
night,"   203.    206,    194. 

Shalmanezer  II  and  Ahab,  Jehu, 
Benhadad,  Hazael,  etc.,  210-215. 

Shalmanezer  IV,   193,  199,  219. 

"Shepherds  in  the  Wilderness," 
i53fif,  Ch.  XII;  key  phrase,  162; 
the  word  in  Hebrev/  and  Greek 
and  Latin,   i56flf. 

Shunammite   woman,   214. 

Sib'e   sultan  of   Mitsri,   200,  see   So. 

Simon   the   just,   251,   255. 

Sinai  and  the  Abrahamic  usages,  226. 

So,  king  of  Mitsraim,   199,  see  Sib'e. 

Sodom   and    Gomorrah,    17, 

Spencer,  Herbert,  91. 

Spiritual  impulses  in  Scripture-writ- 
ing,  31- 

Stories  of  the  Bible,  first  get  their 
meaning  as  stories,  117,  133, 
i43flf,   280,  292. 

The  Study  of  Holy  Scripture,  C.  A. 
Briggs,  12. 

The  Sunday  School  Times,  259. 

The  superhuman,  changed  ideas  of, 
43. 

The  Supreme  Power  and  minute  de- 
tails,  30. 

Synchronisms,  176;  exact  between 
Shalmanezer  II  and  Ahab,  211; 
mistaken  inferences,  209;  "A 
Few  Additional  Svnchronisms," 
208,  Ch.  XVI;  principles,  208; 
"A  Line  of  Synchronous  His- 
tory,"  191,  Ch.  XV. 

Ten^  Commandments,   241. 

Testimony,  discrediting  of,  66;  to 
Mosaic  authorship,  59. 

Text  criticism,  legitimate  and  illegit- 
imate,   IS,    79. 

Thinking  for  ourselves,   73. 

Tiglath-pilezer,   i9iflf,   196!?,  219. 

Time,  measures  of,  177,  see  Chro- 
nology. 

Tommv  Tompkins,  Mrs.  Underwood, 
178. 

Tradition,  older  and  newer,  52,  73; 
true  and  false  use  of,  73,  74. 

Truthfulness  of  the  Scriptures,  sff; 
in  the  Church  of  the  future,  25; 
criterion  of  agnosticism,  5;  cur- 
rent denials,  7-9;  great  present- 
day  question,  14;  versus  historic- 


Index 


335 


ity,  IS,  109,  see  Parable  natur- 
alistic interpretations,  16-18;  or- 
dinary and  higher  truthfulness, 
25,  27;  science  and  the  Bible, 
17;   what  is  truthfulness?   47. 

Uncritical  beliefs,  when  legitimate. 

The  Unity  of  the  Book  of  Genesis, 
W.  H.  Green,  69. 

Ussher,  185,  199,  300,  see  Chro- 
nology. 

Uzziah  (Azariah)  and  the  Assyrian 
records,   196. 

Vashti,  293,  3P3,  305. 

The     Veracity     of     the     Hexateuch, 

Bartlett,    276. 
^'erbal    inspiration,    29. 
Vernacular  Bible,  79. 
Vicious   assumptions,   ySfi. 
"Views    That    are    Held    Concerning 

the  Bible,"  51,  Ch.  V. 


Vision  and  Authority,  Oman,  85. 
Von  Orelli,  Dr.   Conrad,   131,  307. 

Wandering  in  the  wilderness,  camp 
and  tent  of  meeting,  159;  cor- 
rect picture  of,  159;  disciplinary 
purpose,  161;  inadequate  ideas, 
156,  158;  the  manna,  158,  159, 
161;  the  marches,  161;  shepherd 
life,   162;  vagi,  157. 

Wellhausen,   8,    276. 

Westminster  Teacher,    loi. 

Wiener,    Harold,   69. 

Wooden    interpretations,    83. 

Wright,    Dr.    G.    F.,    17,    26. 

Wrong  positions,  18,  19,  20,  23. 

Xerxes,  300. 

Year,  in  the   Bible,   177. 

Zechariah,    pro- Assyrian    king,    196. 
Zerubbabel,  305,  312. 


^      DATE  DUE 

Am  1  i^^' 7 

^^aantaw 

fl*^ 

JUN  ]  5 

ft 

JUNli 

R99O 

-^  '*^        ^p   ^^ 

.m"^i*^ 

-4^ 

[>>  1994 

^ 

1 

JiJL^ 

k^i. 



1 

DEMCO  38-297 

«     •■,",';  ^f  f  :< 


